The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 6, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
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     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3
MadRat    RE:Britain needs to pull out of europe, period.   6/15/2005 7:05:15 PM
We have room on the other side of the Atlantic for England. You can leave Ireland where its at.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:Why Britain must.. -Lawmen   6/16/2005 4:51:40 AM
I have to confese a mistake when i quoted the rebate figure i said uk 2.8 + 3 in the rebate well this is wrong as these were not the same currency the figures were 2.8 Bn euros and 3 bn £ which is approx 4.2 bn euros this makes approx 7bn euro without rebate a lot closer to germany than i thought. since when was the common market stated as a superstate? Iam sure a lot of countries were completely unaware of this! it may have been france and germanies intention but that does not make it true. the common market was a trading block it had no provision for an eu govenment or courts or laws etc these were all added later. and without the voter in the relavent countries having a say, first time they do they do what? oh yes they say NO,(and look at the countries that have said yes, how many actually gave there people a vote?) you claim that the eu isnt corupt? then why does its auditorsd refiuse to sign off the budget and have for 10 year + coruption is epidemic dont forget that one of the problems is that the UK has a completely diferent legal system to the rest of europe and its not onne we fancy giving up thank you
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    France dominate in 2050?   6/16/2005 5:17:59 AM
Demographie: the population growth in Europe is entirely due to French. link France is going to 75 million in 2050 Birth rate is 1,92 and would be 1,82 without immigrants and former immigrants. So our poulation is going to stay white.Good news.
 
Quote    Reply

dummnutzer    RE:Why Britain must.. -Lawmen   6/16/2005 9:05:48 AM
Q:"dont forget that one of the problems is that the UK has a completely diferent legal system to the rest of europe and its not onne we fancy giving up thank you" Too late. Talking to a British colleague a year ago or so, he described the planned changes to the British Criminal system as ´merging the worst aspects of British and Continental law´. The public likes higher prosecution rates, so populist Mr.Blair is going to remove British restictions on the prosecution without adding European ones. This will also save some money. Better to avoid the UK criminal courts in future, they are going to turn into inferior copies of French courts soon. This has nothing to do with the EU, btw. .
 
Quote    Reply

dummnutzer    RE:France dominate in 2050?   6/16/2005 9:09:52 AM
Q:"So our poulation is going to stay white.Good news." Not for the French football team, which depends upon ´non-white´ players. And I always thought France was definied by culture and ideas, not skin tone. I must have been listening to too much French propaganda ...
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:Why Britain must.. -Lawmen   6/16/2005 12:28:53 PM
I disagree, though not because changes are not coming - the law will not change into the continental system, it simply cannot do so. The UK is adrift in the sea of good intentions, with pro-Europe people thinking the answer to all of the UK's problems is to copy the Continent. The UK should indeed relocate to North America, if not physically, at least socially!
 
Quote    Reply

Alexis    To FS : France dominate in 2050? Yes, in a rampaged Europe !!!   6/16/2005 12:41:24 PM
"Demographie: the population growth in Europe is entirely due to French. link France is going to 75 million in 2050 Birth rate is 1,92 " The 75 million population is attainable only if fecundity rises from its present depressed state. On the overall outlook : yes on present trends France would be the largest power in Western Europe 2050 ... but that wouldn't be saying much ! This is a case of "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed are kings", that is : having a less depressed demography than countries which are experiencing a catastrophic decline in birth numbers like Germany, Italy, Russia or Spain is better than nothing, but it's nothing to brag about. The reality is that on present trends, each generation of French people is replaced only to the tune of 85% to 90% (more recently, it is 90%). That is a demographic decline. And those numbers include French of recent stock, which are not differentiated in statistics from French of older stock. Speaking of which, where does that "1.82 fecundity among white French" statistics come from ?
 
Quote    Reply

ShallowThinker1    RE:Why Britain must make a Powerful case for Economic Reform in Europe!   6/17/2005 10:23:44 AM
I haven't gotten through what seems to be a very interesting thread so I apologize in advance if I'm being redundant. All of the advanced economies are basically welfare states. Europeans and Americans may strongly disagree about the "how" and "how much" of welfare but barring plague, pestilence, natural disaster, or war (or combination thereof) of "truly biblical proportions" there is virtually zero danger of starvation/malnutrition or harm from exposure to anyone beyond some extreme fringe of the mentally ill or hopelessly addicted. What the advanced (and advancing) economies have to figure out how to adapt to in the face of unprecedented demographic change is that over the past one hundred years (give or take a few years) we have radically redefined the ordinary or typical person's ideas about both wealth and health. The post at link does a good job of touching on and provoking some thought about this, at least IMHO. In that post Shannon Love relates the story of how John D. Rockefeller, at the turn of the past century, posessed a level of "wealth" that dwarfed even that of Bill Gates today. At that time even the most wealthy man in the world, however, could do nothing to save two of his grandchildren from dying from a streptococcol infection ("Scarlet Fever"). Today at a quite trifling expense virtually anyone can be saved not only from death but also from much of the physical discomfort. This touches on how radically the notions of both health and wealth have been redefined. If you'll pardon my windiness I'd like to expand that. This isn't simply a matter of how many formerly potentially fatal afflictions are not cured as trivial exercises of modern medicine. Any of us can easily think of a long list of diseases or simple effects of aging that were once fatal but are no longer. I'll try to make the point anecdotally although I am reasonably certain studies and such could be tracked down if I weren't too lazy to do so. I have pretty regular and frequent contact with people who provide "health care". I was recently eavesdropping on a conversation between two people who have each been "health care providers" for approximately 25 years. That's a "mere" quarter century. The conversation, paraphrasing, went: P1: "It really is easy to forget how much has changed since we started working in this job, isn't it. For instance, the other day I was making rounds doing treatments and I picked up a chart, saw that the patient I was going to treat was 82 years old and my first thought was that she'd be yet another really old person near death who the treatment wouldn't accomplish much of anything. That's the way it was when we started out but it isn't anymore. She was sharp as a tack and I hope I'm that strong and healthy when I'm 82. And that's pretty much normal anymore." P2: "Yeah, it is amazing. I see it all the time. Just in the past week I've had one patient who is 87 and he came in for tests because he's concerned that he gets winded when he plays tennis. I had an 83 year old who's survived three different types of cancers and he's concerned about how easily he gets tired playing golf. I had a 76 year old who was terrified because she'd been gasping for air on her recent vacation. Her vacation was in Utah and she was gasping for air at 11,000 ft. elevation. She's 76 and she lives at sea level! All three of them tested higher than predicted for pulmonary funtion. Their pulmonary functions are healthier than normal!" The welfare systems that the advanced economies have in place were concieved and designed for very different levels of health and wealth. They were put in place to make sure that when folks were worn out in their mid-60s they wouldn't starve or freeze to death over the last four or eight years of their lives. Ordinary people, even a scant 50 or 60 years ago, were not typically skiing or playing tennis or traveling the world when they beyond 65 years old and nobody expected them to live another 15 or 20 or 25 years. The systems were designed for 3 or 4 or 5 workers to "support" or "carry" one "old person" who really didn't expect of demand much and would only live a few more years. They were "light" and they weren't going to be "carried very long." In historic terms we have moved faster than we've been able to adapt to. We're approaching a time when only 2 workers will be expected to "carry" each retired person and that retired person is much "heavier" and needs to be "carried a lot farther". "She ain't heavy, she's my grandma" isn't going to cut it. JMO, but the advanced economies need to be put on the most flexible possible foundation so that we can manage the adaptation we need to manage. We're going to have to shorten the "distance" retirees need to be carried (we're all going to have to work beyond that magic 65 or whatever), we're going to have to make retirees "lighter" (we're going to have to place greater responsibility for financial safety in old age onto individuals) and we're going to have to make the workers "stronger" (increase productivity). The more "socialist" an economy the less chance I think it has to adapt to these huge demographic changes. JMO of course. The only way to adapt quick enough (short of totalitarianism to whip slaves harder and erradicate the ol' folks) is to keep as close to the "creative destruction" of capitalism as possible within the basic welfare expectations of modern economies. It ain't "savage", it is necessary adaptation.
 
Quote    Reply

ShallowThinker1    The US as International Trade Bully   6/17/2005 10:48:04 AM
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 US carried an enormous portion of Europe's defense costs for many decades. If the US were half the monster some folks like Ehran seem to claim it is there'd be no Canada - Canada would never have survived with such a "terrible neighbor". Canada couldn't survive having Mexico as its immediate neighbor. Having the US as it's most immediate neighbor saves Canada untold administrative, social welfare, and defense costs. Get over it with the petty "trade war" nonsense. That stuff happens constantly - always has and always will. Be thankful you're not picking up your full share of the cost of keeping the world's "highways of trade" open and reasonably safe.
 
Quote    Reply

dummnutzer    RE:The US as International Trade Bully   6/17/2005 8:31:53 PM
Q:"Get over it with the petty "trade war" nonsense. That stuff happens constantly - always has and always will." Yes, but I prefer a strong bargaining position. The EU is strong enough to make the US abide to WTO-rulings (mostly), Canada is not. This is not a moral judgement: The EU and its individual members are quite willing to take unfair advantage of a partners weakness, e.g. in several contracts with African states. Interesting link, btw. .
 
Quote    Reply

tjkhan    RE:The US as International Trade Bully   6/18/2005 9:41:17 PM
Please don't try and suggest it is the Europeans who have some higher moral authority when it comes to compliance with WTO rules. Have a look at : link for a sumary of the WTO's findings on the EU Sugar dispute. Or: link to look at the recent finding's regarding Europe's approach on Dynamic Radom Access Memmory Chips. Both these findings came following complaints by such contries as Australia, Brazil, Thailand and South Korea. Both findings demonstrate that the EU is prepared to both ignore EU rules, and corrupt world markets. Of course America is not too flash either, but if you look at trade distorting policies, such as rural farm and export subsidies, the EU heads the bunch. Realistically many in the EU know these policies can't be sustained, and that's what Tony Blair is saying. The resistance to change principally lies with France and Germany, philisophically (and perhaps politically) neither government is prepared to give the massive subsidies away (it seems). So, lets stop this argument that the EU is part of the answer to US trade policies, it is part of the problem. From the Australian perspective, a recent World Bank report found that if both EU and American sbsidies were removed, our farmers would see a 65% increase in their farm incomes...that's evidence of pretty significant trade distortions.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    France dominate in 2050?    6/19/2005 4:10:33 PM
Does this mean that France will be more than willing to increase its expenditure on the EU? :) I very much doubt it! At the end of the day, what doe s CAP bring to us? Subsidizing inefficent farmers ( i am sure if the brits were subsidized as much our productivity would increase!), increased prices on food. Farmers being paid to have fallow fields? Increased Fraud in southern Europe for non existant olive groves? Farming accounts for less than 4% of workers in the EU< yet gets a massive 40% of the EU budget, if the political will was there, we could put the cash into R&D and industry, so that Europe really could punch its weight in the world.
 
Quote    Reply

tjkhan    RE:France dominate in 2050?    6/19/2005 5:00:42 PM
Giblets said "Farming accounts for less than 4% of workers in the EU< yet gets a massive 40% of the EU budget, if the political will was there, we could put the cash into R&D and industry, so that Europe really could punch its weight in the world." That's at the heart of the problem. This huge bucket of money is talked about as if it simply arrived from heaven. WRONG...it's taxpayer's money. You have a group of government's (and obviously voters) who believe governemnts can make better decisions on expenditure than individuals and companies. And what do these governments do with the money...they spend large chunks of it on propping up inefficient farmers all across the continent. They use the money to encourage the production of output you cannot consume, and then have to subsidise the citizens of other countries to consume it. It's madness. Of course if what you do is reduce your farming subsidies, and then provide more subsidies to industry you will create the same inefficiencies in that area too. Let me suggest...cut the farming subsidies, and then reduce the budget of the EU by a similar amount. Take the road of so many others and reduce the size of the government footprint rather than keep on with the notion of government for governments sake.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:France dominate in 2050?    6/19/2005 5:15:42 PM
Whilst I agree with most of what you say, i think your point about propping up industry with the same investment has been taken out of context. If the money was going directly to the industrial sector to subsidise jobs and output (i.e we will ensure that we will give you ?XX euros per car produced, which is what happens with cap), then yes, I would agree, however, the money can be spen elsewhere. If you can put this money towards research and development, the likes of Universities etc, then this is not necessarily 'propping up inefficient institutions'. the likes of CERN ( the particle physics laboritory), or the research into a fusion reactor, even NASA is a good example This is important and technologically advanced work. The important point is that whereas in farming, the subsidy goes from government directly to the farmer,a nd pretty much stops there, with technological research etc, the money goes the institution, which then will get in brains, and specialist, hi-tech equipment, thus spreading the cash more evenly in diverse areas (what?s a farmer going to do, buy a new tractor, which can be made more cheaply in Korea). Providing you can put safeguards intot he expenditure, you can ensure that the money is spread through various sectors, such as construction, equipment etc, all of which has to be tendered out.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.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