Skip to comments.Faded Vision Splits Europe
Posted on 06/18/2005 10:30:57 AM PDT by 68skylark
BRUSSELS, June 18 - Something shattered in Europe last night.
The leaders of the 25 European Union nations went home after a failed two-day summit meeting in anger and in shame, as domestic politics and national interests defeated lofty notions of sacrifice and solidarity for the benefit of all.
The battle over money and the shelving of the bloc's historic constitution, after the crushing no votes in France and the Netherlands, stripped away all pretense of an organization with a common vision and reflected the fears of many leaders as they face rising popular opposition to the project called Europe.
Their attacks on one another after they failed to agree on a future budget - for 2007 through 2013 - seemed destructive and unnecessary, and it is not at all clear that they will be able to repair their relationships. And even if they do, the damage to the organization will endure.
Most embarrassing for the European Union was an attempt by its 10 newest members to salvage the budget agreement late last night. They offered to give up some of their own aid from the union so that the older and richer members could keep theirs.
For the new members, that offer was an opportunity to prove their worth. Criticizing the "egoism" of countries driven by national interests, Prime Minister Marek Belka of Poland said, "Nobody will be able to say that for Poland, the European Union is just a pile of money."
But for the older members, it was a humiliation. "When I heard one after the other, all the new member states - each poorer than the other - say that in the interest of an agreement they would be ready to renounce part of the money they are due, I was ashamed,"....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Something along the lines of Hamilton and Madison versus Brutus. It would be awesome with not just two ideas but twenty.
What they have created is not a Federal system, but a Confederacy. If Hamilton was right, the Federal system is much more advantageous.
The Schaden's getting a bit too high and my Freude is running out.
It was a bad idea to begin with, and yet again we see France as probably the culprit at botching something up..
The newer nations willing to give up some money, and NOT asking the bigger nations to do so, was incredibly generous, yet naive...
France wants ALL of the POWER with none of the responsiblity, financial or otherwise.
Political unity is impractical for Europe unless they are willing to provide extensive policing of internal trade and that would require extensive taxing of commerce just to support the police system. There would be no advantage over separate states in that respect.
How true that observation is.
Pathetic that the eastern countries, familiar with communist tyranny, were still willing to sacrifice needed aid in order to feed the fat French and German state machinery.
Still was not enough... But then anything short of their total economic and social control never is if you are a communist.
That probably cannot be done since the borders are easily accessible from all sides. Both the internal borders of greater Europe and the external borders are practically open as should be clear from the extensive history of uncontrolled migration in the region aside from the brief periods of actual policed walls in a few locations.
But that's what I was saying [writing, rather] - that it cannot be done without a bloodbath. The last known attempts at obliterating cultural identities on European landmass were Katyn forest [a relatively small scale attempt at "surgical change", picking the social leaders and potential leaders only] and - more comprehensively - Holocaust.
I agree with your premise. What the French see is not a EU without the "Frenchity" as you put it, but rather a French EU, where everyone else would give up their Germanity, Italianity... For some reason, unknown to me, the Germans seem fine tossing out their Germanity in exchange for French, but the other nations aren't going to take it any more.
That's about to change, and rather radically I fancy. Once Shoe-odor and the Greenies are booted out of power in a couple of months (they rate to be absolutely clobbered, btw), the new gov't won't be nearly so cozy with either the froggies or the Russians.
I would never want to see a frenchman stripped....but wouldn't it be "Stripped of their Frenchinicity"?
I think we need a much closer relaionship with some of the newer states, especially Poland.
Anyone know if Poland produces a good wine?
According to the paper, ole Jacky Chiracy tried to lay the collapse solely on Britain because Britain refused to surrender its annual rebate and several other nations demanded financial relief. Jacky said he "deplored" Britain's attitude during the negotiations. Tony Blair responded by saying there were four other countries that couldn't reach agreement. Referencing Jacky Chiracy and France, Blair said: "I'm not prepared to have someone tell me there is only one view of what Europe is. Europe isn't owned by any of them; Europe is owned by all of us." Jacky Chiracy's own people refused to ratify the EU Constitution. So he better look to his own self for fault before looking at others. Besides, the French people sent a message to Jacky and he doesn't seem to be listening. Isn't that just like a US demoncRAT legislator? (rhetorical)
The EU will never go anywhere so long as the UK is a member. Britain's consistent policy over centuries has been to play "balance of power" politics to keep the countries on the continent divided and equal in power. The idea of a united, strong Europe is most unwelcome to London. Europe has to figure out how to get the UK out, and how to get the Ukraine and Russia in.