20-06-2005 02:08									#1
	Sell Yer Euros Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Anger over EU summit failure BRUSSELS, Belgium -- European Union nations are struggling to find a way forward after the failure of a two-day summit that produced neither a budget for the years ahead, nor a clear sign that the EU constitution will ever be ratified. Leaders began attributing blame the moment they emerged from their fruitless talks in the early hours of Saturday. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose country takes over the EU's six-month rotating presidency on July 1 from Luxembourg, was the main target. Summit host Jean Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's prime minister, pointedly told reporters he would make sure to miss Blair outlining his plans for the EU when he addresses the European Parliament on Thursday. "As that is the national day of Luxembourg, I will not be listening," he said. In two days of acrimonious negotiations, the 25 EU leaders haggled over their common spending plans for the 2007-2013 period. They failed to reach a deal. Nor did they present a clear blueprint to save a proposed EU constitution recently rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands. Juncker said the damage caused was profound. In weeks ahead, EU diplomats and others "will tell you that Europe is not in crisis," he said after the summit collapsed. "It is in a deep crisis." Britain was criticized for postponing its referendum on the EU constitution after French and Dutch voters rejected it. Luxembourg, Denmark and others are now also expected to postpone their votes, throwing the charter's fate into more uncertainty. The budget debacle centered on Britain's refusal to surrender an annual rebate to reimburse it for its outsized payments to the EU coffers. Blair's demand to link any discussion of the rebate to overall reform of the EU's agricultural subsidies -- of which France is the main beneficiary -- scuttled a spending deal. The budget requires the approval of all 25 EU member states, so it cannot go into force without Britain's approval. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw accused other EU leaders of wanting a European Union "trapped in the past" and said Britain had the support of at least four other EU states. He told the BBC that European leaders face a "fundamental change (that) no one in Europe can dodge." Former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher won Britain's EU rebate in the 1980s, arguing that part of the money her country paid into the EU's coffers should be refunded. She argued that Britain received fewer benefits than other large countries, particularly France, which reaps more agricultural subsidies. Blair has said he is only willing to discuss changing the rebate as part of a more in-depth overhaul of EU finances, including its common agricultural policy. British officials have said it eats up too much of the EU's budget.

this + failure of constituion, will slam the euros value (I predict)
good for me, cuz ill be going abroad soon.

	20-06-2005 02:10									#2
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Juncker is such a muppet.

	20-06-2005 02:13									#3
	Put an end to popups!

Tempest in a teacup as far as the Euro economy goes. Keep yer Euros, if you're selling on the "crisis." Sell them if you're looking at the overall strength of the Euro economy and interest rates.

	20-06-2005 02:16									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Juncker isn't a muppet. He's the only guy in Europe who says things as they are

	20-06-2005 02:16									#5
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Britain was criticized for postponing its referendum on the EU constitution after French and Dutch voters rejected it. Luxembourg, Denmark and others are now also expected to postpone their votes, throwing the charter's fate into more uncertainty.

The last suggestion for a constitution is dead so why waste more money when the result is already known? Europe can still have a good constitution which solves the EU's structural problems but the last Constitution won't be the anwser. Instead they should get a simple document which stripes nations of their veto, institutes majority rule voting (in most cases but reserving a 2/3 majority in certain cases), enshrines direct elections instead of political appointments for all EU offices, and promotes Europe wide institutions over the national government. This can be done but it can't be done in a document which is thousands of pages long and which ibcludes a laundry list of totally unrelated items.

It needs to be simple, short, and understandable to everyone. Do that and people will like it.

	20-06-2005 02:23									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Instead they should get a simple document which stripes nations of their veto, institutes majority rule voting (in most cases but reserving a 2/3 majority in certain cases), enshrines direct elections instead of political appointments for all EU offices, and promotes Europe wide institutions over the national government.

Indeed we should

quote: This can be done but it can't be done in a...

...EU that encompasses Britain, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, etc... Many people are not at all ready to sacrifice their sovereignty.

quote: It needs to be simple, short, and understandable to everyone. Do that and people will like it.

I'm not too sure that people will vote yes even to a short, concise and efficient constitution, for two things.

1. For the EU to be efficient, it must be more supranational, and it must rely less on bargainings between countries. As such, for the EU to be more efficient, national sovereignty will suffer. This will be loathed in many countries.

2. The referenda would have many external factors, and the people won't only judge the constitution. However, the campaigns (in Euro-enthusiastic countries) will have a lower risk of failure indeed, because the devil is in the details, and a short constitution wouldn't have details.

	20-06-2005 02:29									#7
	Suffering from ads?

I don't understand why all referenda cannot be made at one single day Europe-wide. As it now stand the results of one referendum have too much influence. There were media reports here that in early may Germans agreed to the con to ca. 60%, but only some weeks later its only 42% (after the French and Dutch decisions). Of course we had not a referendum anyway, but this shows how volatile voters can be on such important decisions.....

	20-06-2005 02:32									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Juncker isn't a muppet. He's the only guy in Europe who says things as they are

He runs around parroting Chirac and trying to light the fire of anti-UK hysteria. His recent diatribe which included large doses of blaming the budget impasse on the UK then claiming the UK was doing it because it didn't want a united Europe was just rubbish. Juncker's whining about the rest of Europe canceling referendums on the now dead constitution were equally junk.

The UK, Sweden, and the Netherlands were willing to roll up their sleeves and solve the budget problem in a comprehensive way but Chirac, along with his muppet Junckers, didn’t want to play ball. Instead they resorted to name calling and pretending the sky was falling. This is simply a budget argument and lots of organizations have budget arguments without the whole thing disintegrating. Eventually the politicians from the countries which are refusing to talk about the budget will stop being a road block and will agree to meet those who do want to solve the budget problem. It will happen but how long it will take depends upon how obstinent certain politicians want to be.

	20-06-2005 02:34									#9
	Increase Your PM Length

BeBro:

I think there are two main reasons for a EU-wide referendum:

1. Technicalities and convenience. IIRC, your own constitution bans referenda. This comes from the trauma of hitler's rise to power. For Germany to accept a referendum would need a serious change in the political culture. Not easy. I suppose some other countries aren't trusting of referenda too.

2. Sovereignty. The big bone of contention. What if 70% of the Brits say No, but the text passes anyway because it has the majority support in other European countries? Many European countries would be very very reluctant to have something decided by the others.

I hope we have a Europe-wide referendum one day, and I hope that such referenda will be a relatively usual way to amend the constitution. However, I'm not holding my breath. Too many sovereignists for it to work out.

	20-06-2005 02:38									#10
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin He runs around parroting Chirac and trying to light the fire of anti-UK hysteria. His recent diatribe which included large doses of blaming the budget impasse on the UK then claiming the UK was doing it because it didn't want a united Europe was just rubbish.

However, it's perfectly true. We're witnessing a brutal hit against the principle of quiet consensus. In the latest years, reaching consensus has been increasingly frustrating, but possible. Now, we're at the crossroads, and consensus will simply not work anymore.

The EU as we know it is in crisis. The budget row is a mere collateral damage of a much more serious symptom: the consensus isn't working.

	20-06-2005 02:39									#11
	Tired of ads?

Yes, sell more euros. It will help exports. The effective US/Euro trading rate is almost at parity.

	20-06-2005 02:39									#12
	Support Apolyton

Yeah, I know the problems, I mean - until we get a real Europe-wide referendum - then they could at least make all national referenda (in those countries which hold them) at the same day Europe-wide. IMO it would at least remove the problem that the vote in one country could influence the decision in the next countries.

	20-06-2005 02:45									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor quote: This can be done but it can't be done in a... ...EU that encompasses Britain, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, etc... Many people are not at all ready to sacrifice their sovereignty.

What you are saying is you only want countries which won't challenge your political views to be in it. The others do want a union though they want to preserve their independence in certain areas. This is understandable and can be accomidated in a federal system but you won't have a highly centralized federal state like France. Instead certain foreign policy decisions, much of tax policy, and even most of military policy will have to remain with the national governments. The Federal state will be the junior member but it will exist and pass binding laws without having to worry about national vetos. Anti-market socialists on the continent will have to become more practical in order to get measures passed while free marketeers will have to accept that a limited amount of additional government involvement.

In the end it will work but politicians, like Chirac, who never seem to do anything useful and instead just run around trying antagonize his partners in order to increase his popularity at home will not be able to bring this about. Germany too will need a more practical leader in the mold of Helmet Kohl but who actually has the backbone to make tough choices.

	20-06-2005 02:56									#14
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Germany too will need a more practical leader in the mold of Helmet Kohl but who actually has the backbone to make tough choices.

Kohl hardly ever made hard choices. A large part of our problems today is due to 16 years Kohl without structural reforms in social swystems etc. Thats why he was voted out finally, since after the unification the problems became worse quickly. He handled the unification (foreign-politics-wise) as such excellent, but failed miserably to reach what we call the "inner unity" of Germany (economy, social politics etc.). In domestic affairs the later Kohl years were just lost years for Germany.

	20-06-2005 02:57									#15
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin What you are saying is you only want countries which won't challenge your political views to be in it. The others do want a union though they want to preserve their independence in certain areas. This is understandable and can be accomidated in a federal system but you won't have a highly centralized federal state like France. Instead certain foreign policy decisions, much of tax policy, and even most of military policy will have to remain with the national governments. The Federal state will be the junior member but it will exist and pass binding laws without having to worry about national vetos. Anti-market socialists on the continent will have to become more practical in order to get measures passed while free marketeers will have to accept that a limited amount of additional government involvement.

I'm afraid you don't understand the problem. The problem is not so much a question of agreement/disagreement on policies (though it doesn't help). The problem is to what extent the countries want to lose their sovereignty.

There are only a few areas of policy where the member-States have lost their sovereignty to supranational institutions. Trade policy is one, and it was fairly difficult to make it accepted (despite the fact that it only makes sense to pool trade policy in a common market). Monetary policy is another one, for the Eurozone countries, and it was extremely difficult to have it accepted in some places. Britain definitely rejects the Euro, and Sweden recently voted against joining it. A strong anti-Euro resentment remains in Euro countries, notably in the Netherlands.

If we made the EU supranational on plenty of matters (such as the EU's budget), you'd have a major opposition from plenty of countries, because the populations in these countries think that these decisions must be met by their country, but not by the Brussels Eurocrats.

For the sake of comparison with the US, remember that you had a whole civil war over the question of federation vs confederation. This is the question we'll be forced to sort out at one moment.

	20-06-2005 03:08									#16
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor However, it's perfectly true. We're witnessing a brutal hit against the principle of quiet consensus. In the latest years, reaching consensus has been increasingly frustrating, but possible. Now, we're at the crossroads, and consensus will simply not work anymore. The EU as we know it is in crisis. The budget row is a mere collateral damage of a much more serious symptom: the consensus isn't working.

It's hard to claim Chirac or his muppet Junckers were attempting to reach consensus when they refused to negotiate. It is equally hard to blame the UK for the budget problem when Chirac and Junckers just walked in demand that the UK pay for everything without any other member contributing a damn thing. Those type of demands are what caused this and it won't be solved until Chirac stops behaiving like a child. This is nothing more then a budget debate which Chirac and Junckers are attempting to spin into a "The UK hates Euro other wise they'd agree to be the only one to pay for the budget problems". Eventually Juncker's Presidency will end and he'll sink back into irrelvancy while either Chirac will walk up and start negotiating or the next German government may actually grow a backbone and join the UK in standing up to unreasonable French demands.

	20-06-2005 03:09									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Kohl hardly ever made hard choices. A large part of our problems today is due to 16 years Kohl without structural reforms in social swystems etc. Thats why he was voted out finally, since after the unification the problems became worse quickly. He handled the unification (foreign-politics-wise) as such excellent, but failed miserably to reach what we call the "inner unity" of Germany (economy, social politics etc.). In domestic affairs the later Kohl years were just lost years for Germany.

Especially the way he financed the costs of the unfication was the worst possible one. Kohl's post-unification economic policies were disastrous. And Germany will have to carry a huge burden for a long time.

Anyway, I agree with Spiffor. We have now a battle over what the EU should be. The UK & Co. don't want a political union, but Germany, France and others want one. So there's no other way than to create a core that integrates faster. Of course, this is unacceptable to the UK since it would mean a loss of influence. This is not so much about CAP. With CAP gone, the UK still wouldn't want a political union.

	20-06-2005 03:09									#18
	Full PM-box? Change here!

plus, the fed is expected to raise US interest rates at the end of june and in august (both times by a quarter point, or so says the ny times in an article i read a few days ago)

	20-06-2005 03:12									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin It is equally hard to blame the UK for the budget problem when Chirac and Junckers just walked in demand that the UK pay for everything without any other member contributing a damn thing.

	20-06-2005 03:15									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Kohl hardly ever made hard choices.

That's why I wrote a practical man like Kohl but with backbone. In other words a man who will work with all parties to et things done but who will actually stand up to a member when they are being unreasonable. An excellent case where such a backbone would have come in handy was the recent budget talks. If the German deligation had simply told the French that it is unreasonable for CAP to hog 40% of the EU budget and that any budget cuts would have to include CAP then a resolution would have been completed and the budget talks would have been a success. Yes, it would have made Chirac unpopular but who cares? We're talking about an organization which is supposed to be run for the greater good and not just to keep Chirac's party in office.

	20-06-2005 03:22									#21
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin That's why I wrote a practical man like Kohl but with backbone. In other words a man who will work with all parties to et things done but who will actually stand up to a member when they are being unreasonable. An excellent case where such a backbone would have come in handy was the recent budget talks. If the German deligation had simply told the French that it is unreasonable for CAP to hog 40% of the EU budget and that any budget cuts would have to include CAP then a resolution would have been completed and the budget talks would have been a success. Yes, it would have made Chirac unpopular but who cares? We're talking about an organization which is supposed to be run for the greater good and not just to keep Chirac's party in office.

I think you're getting something seriously wrong here. Kohl sacrificed a lot of German positions in order to make the EU work. No other nation would have done similar things. But the times, when Germans could easily give up their own positions are over. We don't have the economic strength anymore to finance every compromise. But anyway, the summit didn't fail because of Schröder. If France and the UK can't get their **** together, Germany can't do much.

	20-06-2005 03:29									#22
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by kronic

The demand made was that the UK should give up its rebate without any other substantial changes being made. That's pretty one sided and of course the UK didn't agree.

	20-06-2005 03:32									#23
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Yes, the UK should give up the rebate...the Brits could have got even more than they get now.

	20-06-2005 03:33									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by kronic I think you're getting something seriously wrong here. Kohl sacrificed a lot of German positions in order to make the EU work. No other nation would have done similar things. But the times, when Germans could easily give up their own positions are over. We don't have the economic strength anymore to finance every compromise. But anyway, the summit didn't fail because of Schröder. If France and the UK can't get their **** together, Germany can't do much.

Yep, Kohl was very practical (I.E. found ways to get things done) but didn't have backbone (I.E. wouldn't make hard choices thus much of Germany's problems then and now). CAP and the rebate can both be completed over the French objection if Germany was to stop always blindly agreeing to everything the French say and instead sided with the UK against France on a few key issues. That would break the log jam and get things moving again. Chirac would still have his veto but it would be very hard for a French leader to veto a proposal which expanded federal powers, which the other major EU states had already agreed to, even if it cut CAP. Especially if it cut or eliminated the British rebate he has whined so much about.

The kicker is the US would likely end farm subsidies if the EU agreed to kill CAP.

	20-06-2005 03:37									#25
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by kronic Yes, the UK should give up the rebate...the Brits could have got even more than they get now.

I'm not following you. The UK was offered nothing for giving up the rebate. What the British asked for was not more spending but a cut in spending programs like farm subsidies. If France agrees to cut or end farm subsidies then the UK will agree to cut or end the rebate. That's a pretty fair offer and it hard to claim the UK is being greedy when they're offering a way to free up 40%-45% of the EU budget. That's a HUGE budget savings!

	20-06-2005 03:43									#26
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin The kicker is the US would likely end farm subsidies if the EU agreed to kill CAP.

won't happen, cutting farm subsidies is political suicide in the US.

	20-06-2005 03:52									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Odin won't happen, cutting farm subsidies is political suicide in the US.

Wich also is the case in France, but it has to be done - if not in one shap cut, then over f.ex 10 years. It's a hopeless waste of resources/money and prevents development in third world countries.

	20-06-2005 03:53									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by kronic So there's no other way than to create a core that integrates faster. Of course, this is unacceptable to the UK since it would mean a loss of influence. This is not so much about CAP. With CAP gone, the UK still wouldn't want a political union.

The UK and others would agree to some form of union if it was sold right but it would not be the strong federal government some people are looking for. If it matters every nation which has highly diverse populations which has survived as a nation (without military repression a la China) was a federal state. The federal government by nature devolves certain decision making powers to the members but reserves certain other things for the federal government. The federal government gets to set monitary policy, immigration policy, some level of common military & defense policy, a federal court system which outranks the national courts, the right to create legislation setting minimal standards in a wide varity of areas (consumer protection laws, public safety, the enviroment, etc), and some level of tax law.

The EU already has limited or full control over these areas and these could be sold in the other parts of the EU if it was done correctly. Joint foreign policy won't happen because that's the kind of stuff which citizens will automatically rail against and the first Iraq style crisis would bring the system crashing down anyway. Foreign policy will have to not be included for this reason. The rest of it could be voted in by popular vote if everyone gave up something and so thought they were coming out the winner. The UK would have to get to kill the CAP, France would have to get to kill the rebate, Sweden & Holland would have to get to cut the amount they give to the EU (which would be easy if CAP and the rebate were axed), and Germany would also have to see some reductions in contributions.

The end result would be a smaller EU government but one which worked much, much better. It would have clear control over certain areas plus the vetos would be gone. Majority voting would be the norm except for a few 2/3 majority votes here and there. This is doable but not by Chirac or Schoder. Tony might be able to sell it in the UK but he's been damaged by the war. Luckily, Gordon Brown just might be up to the job.

	20-06-2005 03:57									#29
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Odin won't happen, cutting farm subsidies is political suicide in the US.

Is that why the US eliminated all farm subsidies for two years beginning in the late 1990s? Yes, the US ended all farm subsidies because the EU promised that if we did then they'd do the same. As soon as we axed farm subsidies the bastard French went and INCREASED the farm subsidies paid out by CAP. The US felt betrayed and reinstituted farm subsidies.

The US has shown the will to eliminate farm subsidies in the recent past but this time we won't do it unless the EU does it first or at least at the exact same time. We've been burned once by that false promise.

	20-06-2005 04:28									#30
	Full PM-box? Change here!

who cares what they didi. tw wrongs dont make it right. why should we care what the eu does wit their farm subsidies. why dont we do the right thing.