What's the CIA point of vue ?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Pad:

You're wrong. The EU is a vehicle for Denmark's, Poland's, Italy's, France's, Germany's,... interests. Germany and France are only trying to build the EU by working and suggesting. Then, all the countries decide together. If one day any other state wants to help Germany and France, that's great ! But it will be necessary to spend money and time.

Are you acquainted with the term "irreconcilable differences"? It appears that far from reaching consensus, the opinions of the EU's members is diverging very markedly, especially between Britain and the Franco-German alliance.

That's the precise reason why Germany and France (but they aren't alone!) are trying to build the EU. But you don't understand that the EU building is a progressive process. Your argument (today's failures) only prove the incapacity of the present EU. Nothing more. You may think that nothing will change, even that nothing is changing, and that's why I called you a pessimist. Sorry if it shocked you. But I'm actually wrong because you don't want the EU at all. So you can't be pessimistic!
For decades the EU has progressed, despite the economic/political/international crises. That's a matter of will.

Please address the specific points I made. Will Chirac stand up to French farmers to reform the CAP? Will Schroeder stop suing newspapers and try and pull his country out of the mess it's in?

Precisely. Germany wasn't democratic and France wasn't anymore. Now both of them are.

Hitler came to power by manipulating the flawed democratic processes of the Weimar republic, which is why I feel nervous about the democratic deficit in the EU.

By the way Napoleon paradoxically helped European countries to democratize themselves. He was a despot, but he supported freedom of religion, freedom of opinion (but not freedom of press at all!) and he involuntarily triggered rebellion against him and thus against all the tyrants in Europe. The Old Regime almost disappeared.

But the peace following Waterloo restored all of the pre-Napoleonic regimes.

It was the French secret services who did it. I see you're wasting your breath pointing out the failures of EU, as if it could solve every problem, whereas it is not even build yet! Charles Babbage said : "Propose to any Englishman any principle, or any instrument, however admirable, and you will observe that the whole effort of the English mind is directed to find a difficulty, a defect or an impossibility in it. If you speak to him of a machine for peeling a potato, he will pronounce it impossible: if you peel a potato with it before his eyes, he will declare it useless because it will not slice a pineapple." Now I'm discovering it's maybe true regarding the Irish

Are you capable of addressing the specific points I made, or will you continue to obsfucate?

1°) Nothing to do with the Euro
2°) Didn't repudiate anything. Only tried to make it a bit more flexible.

1. The growth and stability pact is a cornerstone of EMU.
2. This is a euphamism.

Maybe you believe that we believe that changing a currency implies we will easily surpass everybody? And within 2 ou 3 years????????

That's what those in favour of EMU said, yes. What's more, in the case of Britain it was claimed that failure to join EMU would result in dire economic consequences, with millions of jobs lost. This hasn't happened.

Please explain how it is possible for the European Central Bank to set interest rates suitable for both Germany and Ireland.

As for France's indefensible human right violations during this war, I reply : "Yes, it's tragical. But what about America's ones in Vietnam (or even in Guantanamo...) ? What about Churchill's ones against Ireland independantists?"

Firstly, what human rights abuses occured in Guantanamo bay?

I accept that America was responsible for human rights abuses in Vietnam. But the original article stated that Europe rejected force of arms for consensus and dialogue, which isn't true.

In the case of British human rights abuses during the Irish war of Independence, these were only in the ha'penny place compared to what the Irish did to one another in the civil war that followed.

The British PM at the time was Lloyd George, not Churchill.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight:

The leadership in Brussels that is non-elected are declared "experts" in their fields of governance--from economic to security issues. They are hardcore socialists and the last thing they want are elections to determine their positions. Recently, they caught a lot of flack for not even writing up a written constitution but they did under pressure. If Europeans are smart they will demand a democratization of the EU to include elections of all major offices. Assistants and other personnel can be drawn from experience pools by the elected--that is not a problem. But once the non-elected bureaucrat gets in office you will never get rid of them and there is no standard of accountability, even if you are told there is.

Bang on the money!

In Germany it is the same story. The socialism that fuels German populations draws its resources from somewhere, and the more the German populations are taxed, the less they can spend. Germany is in for a major economic crisis.

Germany is already in the throes of the worst economic crisis since the war. This has been exacerbated by EMU and the clown leading the country.

Now the socialist state will make up for that downward spiral by taking resources from the producers to give to the non-producers. The key is keeping the producers out of politics, but as Le Pen proved in France, eventually the producers become aggravated.

IIRC the French state is actually the biggest "producer" in France, and none of the candidates in the French presidential election, bar one, advocated a free market solution to Frances problems.

Take Spain for example and it is a good example. Once a flourishing European power, Spain should have been the example of what happens to a European country that embraces socialism.

I think the Inquisition and hardline catholicism are more to blame for Spain's decline as a world power. That being said, Spain's economy seems to have improved under a centre right government.

 

[Pad]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Are you acquainted with the term "irreconcilable differences"? It appears that far from reaching consensus, the opinions of the EU's members is diverging very markedly, especially between Britain and the Franco-German alliance.

Blair’s standing may diverge from Schröder’s or from anybody else’s. He is still a pro-UE and pro-Euro PM. And there isn't any contradiction in that.

Please address the specific points I made. Will Chirac stand up to French farmers to reform the CAP? Will Schroeder stop suing newspapers and try and pull his country out of the mess it's in?

This time the "point you made" was the Balkan crisis, not the CAP. The CAP is a worrying problem indeed. I'm not a specialist, neither know I Chirac's and Schröder's intentions.

Hitler came to power by manipulating the flawed democratic processes of the Weimar republic, which is why I feel nervous about the democratic deficit in the EU.

IMO :
a) Hitler <> Schroeder
b) EU <> Weimar republic
c) [1923,1933] <> [1992, 2003]

But the peace following Waterloo restored all of the pre-Napoleonic regimes.

That's not true. Just open an history book. During this era which is called Restauration in France, the kings did come back but never completely restored the Old Regime. A step forwards in direction to democracy had definitively been done. And in 1848 a second Revolution restored republic (not for a very long time, indeed..., but republic definitely came back in France in 1871).

Are you capable of addressing the specific points I made, or will you continue to obsfucate?

You make me laugh ! "The specific points you made" ?!! He ! You pointed out the Rainbow Warrior, which was bombed by the French secret sercives, as I said. I don't see how Europe is in question here. You aren't giving any argument, you're just quoting such-and-such a fact which are perfectly irrelevant as far as the current debate is concerned. There's nothing to address, my dear!! What else do you want I to reply? You're searching for defects and failures instead of analysing the situation objectively and to submit yourself to a constructive approach to the debate.

1. The growth and stability pact is a cornerstone of EMU.

Yes it is. My point was that the PERCENTAGE of B.N.P. (3%) used for public deficit is arbitrary. France and Germany, as big countries, think that they need a higher ratio. Some other nations don’t agree. I don't understand why the Euro is in question here. Each nation, each country has to face its own problems and disagreements. That’s not an European particularity. That’s not a proof of irrelevance.

2. This is a euphamism.

Sorry I didn't read anything in the French papers that would corroborate this. Neither did I hear a French member of the government questionning the principle of the stability pact.

That's what those in favour of EMU said, yes.

You still don't understand that the economic consequences aren't short-term. The Euro isn't used as a major international currency yet, and it can't be achieved within 1 day. What's more, Tony Blair is really in favour of the Euro and he tries to explain to his public opinion (who is slightly evoluting) the advantages of a common currency in Europe.

Firstly, what human rights abuses occured in Guantanamo bay?

No lawyer, no civil right, no camera, nothing.

But the original article stated that Europe rejected force of arms for consensus and dialogue, which isn't true.

Which isn't true for Algeria, but which is globally true. Progress is never linear. There are forward steps and backwards steps, and my point is that the first ones are much more numerous. At this time Europe was almost only economic. Once more the construction is progressive.

The British PM at the time was Lloyd George, not Churchill.

I was speaking of the 1916 era. I did'nt say Churchill was the British PM, but he was the Interior minister, or something like this anyway. The IRA made terrorist attempts, but so did the FLN. That’s not a justification at all.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by PAd:

This time the "point you made" was the Balkan crisis, not the CAP. The CAP is a worrying problem indeed. I'm not a specialist, neither know I Chirac's and Schröder's intentions.

You make me laugh ! "The specific points you made" ?!! He ! You pointed out the Rainbow Warrior, which was bombed by the French secret sercives, as I said. I don't see how Europe is in question here. You aren't giving any argument, you're just quoting such-and-such a fact which are perfectly irrelevant as far as the current debate is concerned. There's nothing to address, my dear!! What else do you want I to reply? You're searching for defects and failures instead of analysing the situation objectively and to submit yourself to a constructive approach to the debate.

Here are the points I want addressed:


"Why didn't Europes economic performace match or surpass that of America's, or even Britain's, over the past decade? How can the European central bank set interest rates suitable for all members of the Eurozone?"

"Please tell me how EMU and the EU will increase it's importance in the light of the following.
1. Ageing populations
2. Sclerotic economies
3. The Common Agricultural Policy
4. Unwillingness to face up to these problems. Can it be encouraging that Schroeder swung the German election by banging the drum of pacifism (one of his ministers compared Bush to Hitler), in spite of the crisis Germany faces?"

In light of your professed ignorance of the CAP, as well as the intentions of Schroeder and Chirac, how can you claim that the increased influence of the EU and the success of EMU is inevitable?

IMO :
a) Hitler <> Schroeder
b) EU <> Weimar republic
c) [1923,1933] <> [1992, 2003]

Strawman. My point was that a democratic process lacking checks on the power of ruling elites can and has given way to ruling systems infinitely worse. I wasn't making a comparison between Germany now and in the 20's and 30's.

Yes it is. My point was that the PERCENTAGE of B.N.P. (3%) used for public deficit is arbitrary. France and Germany, as big countries, think that they need a higher ratio. Some other nations don’t agree. I don't understand why the Euro is in question here. Each nation, each country has to face its own problems and disagreements. That’s not an European particularity. That’s not a proof of irrelevance.

It's a sign that the architecture of EMU is flawed. Investors will klose confidence in the Euro.

You still don't understand that the economic consequences aren't short-term. The Euro isn't used as a major international currency yet, and it can't be achieved within 1 day. What's more, Tony Blair is really in favour of the Euro and he tries to explain to his public opinion (who is slightly evoluting) the advantages of a common currency in Europe.

What advantages? Britain has boomed outside the Euro, leaving the pro-Eurocamp without a shred of credibility, considering that their dire predictions have proved to be unfounded.

Explain how the Euro will become a major international currency if Europe's economic situation continues to deteriorate?

 

[Pad]

Well, I think I won't have enough time to answer everyday from now on... It costs me a very long time to write a few lines in English.

In light of your professed ignorance of the CAP, as well as the intentions of Schroeder and Chirac, how can you claim that the increased influence of the EU and the success of EMU is inevitable?

I didn't say "inevitable". I said possible and desirable. No deep knowledge is necessary at all. As for the CAP, it has had a lot of beneficial effects too (the EU is almost self-sufficient, the output has exponentially increased, etc ...). However there are now a lot of problems with it. A reform is needed and several suggestions were made and are examinated by the EU members.

A few proposals (there are a lot) without details :
- invite consumers, local associations, environmentalist organisations, ... to the public debate (until now, only governments and professionals have discussed together, which isn't effective).
- stop the economic support to production but support producers in a limited way instead.
- partially give up the "export vocation"

The lobbies (farmers,...) know perfectly well that the statu quo is not possible anymore. Now that's a matter of will and dialogue. Only time will tell us whether this challenge will be accepted and achieved. Once more, all the governments have to reform their countries and it always bring about a lot of disagreements.

It's a sign that the architecture of EMU is flawed. Investors will klose confidence in the Euro.

That's your undemonstrable opinion.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by PAd:

That's your undemonstrable opinion.

The Euro started out in 1999 valued at $1.17. It's value plunged to $0.82, before recovering to a present value of around $1.10. The rise in the value of the Euro has actually harmed the European economy, since it has made European exports dearer. This has harmed Germany, and will harm Ireland since most of our trade takes place with countries outside the Eurozone.

As for the CAP, it has had a lot of beneficial effects too (the EU is almost self-sufficient, the output has exponentially increased, etc ...).

This is due to the Green Revolution, not CAP. Output has increased exponentially everywhere in the last 50 years, not just the EU.

The lobbies (farmers,...) know perfectly well that the statu quo is not possible anymore. Now that's a matter of will and dialogue. Only time will tell us whether this challenge will be accepted and achieved. Once more, all the governments have to reform their countries and it always bring about a lot of disagreements.

The farmers know CAP isn't economically jusitifiable, so they've been couching there arguments in terms of food safety (a bit of a joke) and maintanence of the rural environment. The problem is that in France and Ireland in particular farmers continue to have a lot of influence politically, and I can't see any government ahving to backbone to stand up to them.

From earlier regarding "human rights abuses" in Guantanamo bay:

No lawyer, no civil right, no camera, nothing.

No civil rights? That's what the Taliban are fighting for, a world free of civil rights!

No lawyers? Why would they be entitled to them? Will they eventually stand trial, or be repatriated?

No camera? Of course, the Taliban are opposed to images of the human form!

Nothing? Far from it, they got prayer mats, IIRC medical personnel outnumbered prisoners, and were well fed.