Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why Britain must make a Powerful case for Economic Reform in Europe!
Nemesis1    6/13/2005 2:38:41 PM
Numbers count - Why Britain must make a powerful case for economic reform in Europe There is something almost too prosaic about statistics. Great debates will be held in Europe this week over subjects as immediate and profound as opportunity, poverty, and welfare, and yet much of the rhetoric will be without statistical foundation, and the only numeric competition will be in the stream of adverbs and adjectives deployed to make eloquent but unsustainable arguments. Britain will doubtless suffer more ignominy over its rebate, but far more important issues will remain undiscussed. Absurd claims by several countries, in particular by France and Germany, will, meanwhile, go unchallenged to the detriment of their own citizens and of the region. It is clear that Europe is beginning to divide along two lines, the new and the old, and the successful and the failing, and yet the old and failing are determined that the new and successful should abide by standards that have hobbled their own countries; it is vested, institutional interest taken to the extreme. There is, however, nothing high-minded about the lowest common denominator, as figures provided by Eurostat, the European Union's statistical agency, make clear. For all the fine talk about ?fairness?, which of the following three countries is fairer in providing opportunities to its more mature citizens and to women: France, Germany or Britain? In 2004, the employment rate of ?older workers?, those aged between 55 and 64, in France was 37.3 per cent, in Germany 39.2 per cent, and in Britain 56.2 per cent. And what of women? The female employment rate last year in France was 57.4 per cent, in Germany 59.9 per cent, and in Britain 65.6 per cent. What European directive has Britain adopted to ensure that its citizens have more opportunities in life? Flexibility in hiring (and in firing) is essential if companies and countries are to provide choices for their citizens. And what of the working poor, those who have clearly taken up the challenge to better themselves and their families? Are they better treated in countries that are conscious of ?welfare? or in Anglo-Saxon, for which read ?brutal?, Britain? The tax rate on ?low wage earners?, as defined by Eurostat, was 45.4 per cent last year in Germany, 32.6 in France and 26.4 per cent in Britain. Surely there must a category in which these two pillars of European society outperform Britain? Indeed there is ? unemployment, which is 4.7 per cent in Britain, 10.2 per cent in France, and 11.8 per cent in Germany. At least the jobless on the Continent have the consolation of their leaders? philosophising. These figures have been duly noted by the new entrants to the EU, whose citizens were endlessly and unfairly caricatured in the French referendum campaign. ?Are we so frightening?? a Hungarian cabinet minister asked in Germany last week. And where are the ?Polish plumbers? so mocked by the French establishment? Britain's creaking, moaning pipes are calling out urgently for them. The British Government has created a fairer society than that overseen by many of its European allies, and Tony Blair must forcefully make that argument this week as the region?s leaders contemplate a continent without a constitution that would have institutionalised the poverty of the vulnerable and provided bragging rights for a sanctimonious elite. That the sanctimony and smugness is callous and unjustified is statistically provable. - An excellent article from todays copy of The Times link Nemesis
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
MadRat    Partial unions   6/15/2005 8:34:46 AM
The EU should have set itself up into smaller trade blocs and worked from there. Northern Europe has a reasonable reason to want to form a trade bloc. Southern Europe has a reason. Western Europe does, too. Central Europe can find plenty of commonality for another one. And I'm sure if Eastern Europe was to join they'd have ample reason for a trade bloc, too. But the whole of Europe is not served by a one size fits all solution. Smaller trade blocs should have been set up and then agreements between blocs would have made more sense. The trading partnerships would allow a more consistent fairness across member states and protect old economies from new ones and vice versa. Countries like France should not prop up a Poland and a Poland shouldn't have to prop up a Portugal. But Spain, Portugal, England, Ireland and France have close enough proximity to form a trade union. And Sweden, Denmark, and Norway would have ample reason to make a trade union and might invite in Finland or others as well. And nothing should stop members from joining multiple alliances. Spain might join a southern alliance as well as a western one. The concept of the EU was to unify Europe into a single powerful trade bloc. Instead it has divided Europe into a bunch of competing factions that now want more for less. If the unions made sense then countries wouldn't have such a complicated scam going and less bitching and moaning would take place. By creating multiple smaller blocs the interopability would have created a stronger overall Europe.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:Partial unions   6/15/2005 8:46:29 AM
What about a UK-Netherlands-Denmark? All countries that are annoyed about paying over the odds to prop up other countries. I do like the idea of extending NAFTA to the UK, with the UK withdrawing from the EU, but staying in the EEA (European Economic Area). This would give the maximum benefit to the UK, without making the UK pay for French farmers. It would give the UK much greater freedom, both economically, and socially, but also from a security point of view - the UK could seal its borders, and control entry, preventing the avalanche of asylum seekers coming in from France.
 
Quote    Reply

dummnutzer    RE:Why Britain must.. -Lawmen   6/15/2005 9:10:41 AM
Q:"I am sorry dummnutzer, but you are not correct. The UK has never received more than it paid, and simply saying that 'old Europe' is paying Britain is simply not true. Remember, the UK is not very committed to the EU, and could just pull out if push comes to shove..." I did not claim that they received more, but that they payed less than any other ´rich country´. This shortfall had to be made up by by other ´rich´ countries, e.g. Benelux, Germany and Denmark, paying more. So Germany etc. are subsidizing the UK right now. My deteriorating English language skills are likely to blame for this misunderstanding. ;-) A UK pullout is highly unlikely and more a spectre/wishfull thinking of the Eurosceptics than a real option. I still remember the begging of the Brits at the EU´s door - maybe it was a mistake by Germany to intervene on their behalf ... Limited economic partnerships have one problem: They give competing ecomic powers a point to apply a wedge. Look how Canada is abused by the US, routinely ignoring WTO-rulings in favour of Canada e.g. in the Softwood lumber area. The united EU was able to counter Bush´s steel tarifs - other countries had to suffer. The EU countries including Germany and the UK are too small to deal with economic powers a la the US and soon China as equal partners on their own, but united in the EU they are their equal. This has nothing to do with a superstate/Federal Europe, but is a simple matter of economic power.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:Why Britain must.. -Lawmen   6/15/2005 9:28:25 AM
Why does everything seem to come down to a face off with the USA when Europe is discussed! The UK should never have joined the EU, especially given the fact that UK entry was only acheived by deceiving the UK public. In terms of the other countries 'subsidizing' the UK, that just shows that those countries lacked the guts to do what Margaret Thatcher did! She forced the EEC to give back some of the huge amount the UK pays. The UK should now withdraw from the EU, and join the EEA, and hopefully NAFTA. It would not be as difficult as some may think - all the UK needs to do is terminate the European Communities Act, but keep the existing EU-derived laws. Once the dust settles, the law simply modifies itself to take account of the end of EU power.
 
Quote    Reply

dummnutzer    RE:Why Britain must.. -Lawmen   6/15/2005 9:50:53 AM
Q:"Why does everything seem to come down to a face off with the USA when Europe is discussed!" Because it is a very important trading partner who is quite willing to use its weight to get an unfair advantage. I consider Canada to be a very close ally of the US, and look how they are (mis-)treated. The relative power of the UK prevents major abuse by its European partners, but it would be a very junior partner in NAFTA indeed. Leaving the EU means loosing British influence on EU decisions. It would turn the UK into a bigger version of the Swiss: Implementing all EU directives to get much needed market access, with no input at all. This would realize a scenario the Eurosceptics fear: England being ruled by Brussels (via directives the UK cannot influence). The EU - without the superstate nonsense - is an economic necessity, if the European countries including the UK want to get a fair deal in international trade.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:Why Britain must.. -Lawmen   6/15/2005 10:14:30 AM
I strongly disagree, the UK would not need to pass EU directives in order to trade with Europe. That is nonsense. The UK would not become like a giant Switzerland, though that would not be so bad, just look at the Swiss economy! The UK would be very happy in NAFTA, especially given the UK's very healthy relationship with the US. The UK would not be bullied within NAFTA, no more than it is pushed around by Europe, anyway. I am not suggesting cutting all ties with Europe, I do take issue with the suggestion that not being part of the EU would mean the UK losing all its trade with Europe. The EEA would allow the UK access to European markets, but without anywhere near as much red tape as with EU membership.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:Why Britain must.. -Lawmen   6/15/2005 10:29:36 AM
I did not claim that they received more, but that they payed less than any other ´rich country´. This shortfall had to be made up by by other ´rich´ countries, e.g. Benelux, Germany and Denmark, paying more. So Germany etc. are subsidizing the UK right now. My deteriorating English language skills are likely to blame for this misunderstanding. ;-) what shortfall? what you mean is that if the UK paid the full amount we would subsidise the rest germany gets no rebate yet only pays 7.7 billion euros more than it recieves yet without the rebate the UK would pay 5.8 billion (last year figures) yet we keep getting told that germany is a richer country than the UK. yet compaire this with France at 1.9 billion again without any rebate and you must ask why is France who is certainly as rich as the UK in not more so(especially according to the french posters here) paying near 1 billion less than the UK???? and still demanding that the UK pays even more now that is the hypocritical country not the UK, if you project the figures 5 years and remove the rebate you get germany + 9.2 billion france + 2.1 billion UK + 23 billion now would you like to justify those figures!!!
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:Why Britain must.. -Lawmen   6/15/2005 10:39:19 AM
The UK could even use some of the money saved by withdrawing from the EU to fund the armed forces, and maybe even a space program! The UK would be a lot better off, and could use some of the money to promote small businesses, which are the key to a healthy economy. Bring on UK withdrawal from the EU!
 
Quote    Reply

dummnutzer    RE:Why Britain must.. -Lawmen   6/15/2005 11:11:59 AM
Q:"now would you like to justify those figures!!!" Using Your own figures (without rebate): 80 million Germans pay 7.7 Billion ? - 96.25 ? per capita 60 million British pay 5.5 Billion ? - 91.67 ? per capita The Brits do not deserve a rebate, even without one they would be paying less than the Germans! I see the EU as a club. You (the UK) begged to join. I (Germany) told everybody what a great guy You are and convinced the other members to let You join. As soon as You are a member, You want to re-define its Charter (change Ever Closer Union to Free Trade) and refuse to pay Your membership fees. To stop Your whining and yelling, disrupting any club meeting, I and some other members agree to pay part of Your membership fees. Yes, I call this subsidizing the UK.
 
Quote    Reply

Old Grunt    Why Britain must make a Powerful case for Economic Reform in Europe! - Nemesis1   6/15/2005 11:20:15 AM
Why exactly did you post this on the Armed Forces of the World board?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy