"Something shattered in Europe Friday night."

Charles Paul Freund | June 18, 2005

The NYT reports that EU leaders have returned home "in anger and in shame" following their failed summit this week. At issue was the EU budget as well as the proposed constitution that has been rejected by French and Dutch voters. However, the complete failure of the reportedly acrimonious meeting to address the EU's pressing problems "stripped away all pretense of an organization with a common vision and reflected the fears of many leaders in the face of rising popular opposition to the project called Europe."

"Most embarrassing," writes reporter Elaine Sciolino, "was a last-minute attempt by its 10 newest members to salvage the budget agreement late Friday night. They offered to give up some of their own aid from the union so that the older and richer members could keep theirs." France, for example, receives $13 billion in farm subsidies from the EU.

Tony Blair was talking about Jacques Chirac when he told reporters Friday that, "I'm not prepared to have someone tell me there is only one view of what Europe is and that's the view expressed by certain people at certain points in time." On the other hand, Luxembourg's Claude Juncker, outgoing EU president, said he would "not be listening" when Blair addresses the European Parliament this coming week.

Anybody got a plausible Plan B?

Comments

|6.18.05 @ 6:28PM|#

"Anybody got a plausible Plan B?"

Is there anything of weight that they can agree on? ...Agree to that. ...and wait.

P.S. I'm interested in seeing what kind of effect the cratering of the EU will have on those states on the edges who, heretofore, may have behaved themselves, at least partially, in hope of getting into the club.

Now that there may not be much of a club to get into, what are they saying in Turkey, Bosnia and elsewhere?

|6.18.05 @ 7:52PM|#

Ken Shultz,
I thought the song, "I'm in with the 'in' crowd," had already thoroughly spoofed that mentality.

Excuse me. Politicians lack mentality.
I forgot.

|6.18.05 @ 8:12PM|#

A politically integrated Europe will occur when there's a strong and healthy sense of European nationalism to underpin it throughout the EUzone. In other words, it has little chance of happening during the next 15 years, at least as long as its creation is dependent on the passing of national referendums. Until such a sense of European identity emerges in force, deep economic integration is the most that you can hope for.

|6.18.05 @ 9:18PM|#

Maybe they should just go back to being countries.

|6.18.05 @ 9:26PM|#

> "Anybody got a plausible Plan B?"

Drinks at my place. 9pm good for everyone?

|6.18.05 @ 9:47PM|#

Cridland,
Specifiy yo time zone.

For funsies, how many here would have voted to ratify the US Constitution?

I wouldna.

Madison and Hamilton coulda kept talkin until they were blue in the face.

|6.18.05 @ 10:41PM|#

Even if nothing else happened to advance the Europe project, the continent would still be more united and more peaceful than at any time in its history. The Euro isn't going anywhere. The Munich agreement isn't going anywhere. The military exhanges aren't going anywhere.

A little perspective, please. They're going to go back to the drawing board, and the project will continue for the next few decades in one form or another.

|6.18.05 @ 11:34PM|#

The Eastern European countries, Briton and any other country without its head up its butt should scrap the current treaties, start from scratch and form a European version NAFTA (EFTA). Add free labor movement, military integration, etc. to taste.

|6.18.05 @ 11:53PM|#

Nathan

I thought a free trade zone was specifically what they were trying to reject

gunroom|6.19.05 @ 12:10AM|#

>>>I thought a free trade zone was specifically what they were trying to reject

|6.19.05 @ 12:26AM|#

Captian Awesome

That's why I said Briton, the eastern European countries and anyone else who feels freer trade is a good thing and left out the likes of France. If the French or (to a lesser extent) Germans want to protect their "way of life" then let them go their own way and not do it on the backs of the other european countries.

|6.19.05 @ 2:05AM|#

Incidently, there is already a EFTA. It is made up of countries that are not members of the EU, namely Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.

|6.19.05 @ 5:40AM|#

"Anybody got a plausible Plan B?"

Plan B: Napolean.

Plan C: Attila the Hun.

Plan D: Julius Caesar.

Plan E: Hannibal.

Do I need to list more alternatives?

You may have noticed Hitler is missing. The democratically elected Hitler was too evil even for the likes of me.

Does anybody seriously think Europe is going to be "united" by anything less than a war of conquest? Do you think empires are built by asking pretty-please?

[only joe is exempt from having to answer these questions]

The western world has grown far too enamoured of democracy, imagining it to be an all-conquering force.

There is an all conquering force, but it isn't democracy. It is (see Plan B, Plan C, Plan D, Plan E....)

|6.19.05 @ 6:48AM|#

Perhaps the French voted down the EU constitution because they wanted to be French first, Europeans second. Perhaps the same thing was true of the Dutch.

Makes sense to me.

|6.19.05 @ 12:36PM|#

Well, I don't know if Tim likes it but I have to copy/paste a comment a made in a few threads below ( I am short on time). But here it is.



"Sure, it struggles from crisis to crisis, but it is still here.

The euro is wonderfull if you have to go around the Continent, no more stupid exchanges ( and exchange losses, commissions,...). And the countries as Andrew says that want out ( like Italy) would have a much harder time without it.

People always talk how bad it is, but they don't mention things like being able to cheaply buy a house in another country, live there and maybe even get elected as mayor of their new home-town.

Or no more stupid border-controls.

Sure, the CAP is something horrible, but if the Brits complain about a Brussels nanny, I would advise them to look at London first ( see one off the other threads a little higher)

One of the problems has always been that the governments (sp?) always blamed the EU for some unpopular decission they had to make and always blew there own horn whenever they could do something, like building a new road or hospital, when in actuallity the money came from teh EU.

So it was something like: BAD measure -> EU
GOOD measure -> ME
well it are politicians...
So can you blame the people for losing there faith in the EU?"

So add to this comment I must say, the thing about the good/bd measures from the EU is one important reason for the Non/Neen-votes.
Then there was that it was to liberal (classical-sense) for some while not liberal enough for others.
But all off this is another topic.

The fact is that the Brits and the French are the both a bunch off cocksucking bastards. They constantle engange in a dickwaving contect which eachother and they don't mind what the damage is in the end. They only hope that the other comes out worse.

To me they both come out as big-time losers comparing to th eother members.

|6.19.05 @ 1:05PM|#

Perhaps the French voted down the EU constitution because they wanted to be French first, Europeans second. Perhaps the same thing was true of the Dutch.

Makes sense to me.

Comment by: Mike Gallagher at June 19, 2005 06:48 AM

Mike-

Makes sense to me as well.

Jon Stewart had the best comment of all after the French rejected the EU: "The French acting in a contrarian manner? Who would have thought?" (That was a paraphrase.)

|6.19.05 @ 1:15PM|#

Actually, the rumor in Europe is that the French 'non' was more a statement to Chirac and Co. rather than about a more integrated Europe--hence the new P.M. Of course, that's not a good reason to vote 'no' on the constitution but who needs rationality in politics anyway?

|6.19.05 @ 2:44PM|#

Paris warning the UK not to an 'Egotist'????

Truely - ROFLMAO

***


http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200506/1e04c534-ae3d-411e-8fbd-669805b15bd0.htm

'Egotist' UK warned over EU presidency role

Paris is concerned that the UK may use London�s EU presidency, which begins in less than two weeks, to drive through an �Anglo-Saxon� reform agenda.

�Britain, which takes over the presidency from July 1 will have a heavy responsibility to ensure that Europe gets back running after playing a part in the summit's failure.�

�Some have kept their national egos, while it is only the European spirit that enables one to find the solutions together,� she said.

�Certain countries held onto their national egos. Certain countries, notably Great Britain.�

Andrew Ian Dodge|6.19.05 @ 3:28PM|#

Well there are many who believe a Europe in chaos is a good thing. It ties up the federasts and Euro-weenies in knots restricting them from coming up with any more daft utopian ideas.

What is most accurate is that Euro-elites are attempting to ignore the wishes of its "citizens" and carry on regardless.

|6.19.05 @ 6:39PM|#

A little perspective, please. They're going to go back to the drawing board, and the project will continue for the next few decades in one form or another.

That ought to keep the Euro-bureaucrats happy (and in the taxpayer-provided money) for a while. Maybe we should announce a program to "reform" the U.S. government that advertises its purpose as rewriting the constitution. The new convention would attract all the most brilliant minds in political science in the U.S. It would have an annual budget of about $1.5 billion, and have no deadlines.

I bet paying 1.5 billion dollars a year to keep the most meddlesome bureaucrats and political thinkers bottled up, fat and happy and smelling their own intellectual farts, with no real influence over the real political landscape in the U.S. would actually cost less money than the way we do it now.

Abiola Lapite|6.19.05 @ 7:54PM|#

"�Certain countries held onto their national egos. Certain countries, notably Great Britain.�"

The French definition of "egotism": others refusing to foot yet more of the bill for their agricultural subsidies. What else but an overmighty ego could possibly obscure the wisdom of British taxpayers giving French farmers everything they petulantly demand?

|6.19.05 @ 8:23PM|#

Abiola,
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the egotistical Brits also some of the largest farm-subsidy recipients.

Abiola Lapite|6.19.05 @ 8:51PM|#

"Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the egotistical Brits also some of the largest farm-subsidy recipients."

They aren't; in fact, the opposite is true, which is precisely why the British rebate exists to begin with.

|6.19.05 @ 9:08PM|#

Thanks, Abiola. Didn't know I had my fact's wrong.

On the subject of trade barriers there was a good article by Sowell on Friday
(also, I should have used a question-mark above)

|6.20.05 @ 1:30AM|#

There are enough language and culture barriers in Europe, that the odds of Eurpoe ever becoming one big happy family are about nil.

In all seriousness, I'm still trying to figure out why so many Americans care.

My best guess so far is that it's like rooting for the Giants in the Superbowl....or does somebody really think the Europeans, if they could just pull together, will usher in the next Utopia?

Wake up everybody. Europe hasn't been able to figure out what it's doing since the demise of the Colonial era. Europe's voice has been that of a lost child since they swore off their conquests (and you've heard the song, it was a hard habit to break).

|6.20.05 @ 5:02AM|#

Ruthless,
You wouldn't ratify the US constitution? What would you have added or subtracted?

|6.20.05 @ 10:02AM|#

Plan B: Admit England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Ireland to the Union as the 51st through 55th states.

|6.20.05 @ 12:47PM|#

If we're taking in Merry Olde, then we should open it up for Canada and Australia as well.

|6.20.05 @ 2:22PM|#

"Plan B: Admit England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Ireland to the Union as the 51st through 55th states."

I have long thought the US should offer to buy the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta (the two most productive Canadian provinces) as our 51st and 52nd states. Every person in the provinces would receive USD$50,000.00 and of course 2 senators and the appropriate number of representatives. It could be put to a vote by the citizens currently residing in those provinces, simple majority wins. If it passes, those who voted against joining the US would have the option of leaving the newly created states and living in some other Canadian provinces. If it didn't pass, no problem but the offer would remain open. The advantage for the Canadians in those provinces would be they would no longer have their productivity and wealth drained off by the less productive provinces and wasteful Canadian gov't. The advantage for the Americans is they would now have direct access to the extensive natural resources and talented and productive individuals in those provinces. We would finally be connected to Alaska as well. Win-win, all around, I think.

|6.20.05 @ 2:31PM|#

I should add that the total cost to buy Alberta and BC would be USD$344,127,250,000.00 using 2001 population data. And it would be a bargain at that price.