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
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
PREV  1 2 3 4 5



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