Free And Undistorted Competition

[Chinahand]

I'm uncertain about the merits of EU Constitutions and expansion.

 

The common EU area for goods and services, the free movements of people and the work to break down bureaucratic obstacles for people to cooperate and work with each other across Europe are the EU's triumphs and things I massively support.

 

Its subsidies, regulation and waste are things I am deeply concerned about and feel that there are serious risks that its increased powers will take away the powers of governments to innovate legislation based on their individual circumstances.

 

Now there is this effort by the French to remove the the words "Free and undistorted competition" from the EU's founding documents.

 

Fears are growing that Europe could drop its 50-year commitment to a level playing field for business in a new treaty to reform the European Union.

 

A reference to "free and undistorted competition" was pulled from the draft after French pressure late on Thursday.

 

The new text talks of a "social market economy aiming at full employment".

 

There is a world of difference between "free competiton" and a "social market economy aimed at full employment". I know what type of Europe I desire and this measure is a backward step - other opinions?

 

---------------------------

 

An anecdot from China - an economist was at a work project in Hunan province - thousands of labourers were digging a dam with spades and picks. "Why don't you invest in a mechanical digger" the economist asked, "it will massively increase your productivity." - The communist bureacrat replied: "We have to be concious of maintaining full employment." To which the economist replied "Oh, well in that case, why don't you take away the spades and give them spoons - you'd need to employ even more people then."

[P.K.]

I've just heard about it on R4's "The World at One". A very good piece it was as well. However they dragged up Hague for the Tories. He was just pathetic. Banging on that this was the EU Constitution in another guise (errr, it isn't), that they were more afraid Blair might give away more executive power to Brussels (errr, he won't) and that the Gov had promised a referendum and reneged on it (errr, with the French and Dutch already voting NO to the EU Constitution the vast expense of a UK effort is no longer required).

 

Democracy UK-style needs an effective Opposition to function properly. It currently doesn't have one.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/wato/ to hear the article.

[The Old Git]

The new text talks of a "social market economy aiming at full employment".

 

There is a world of difference between "free competiton" and a "social market economy aimed at full employment". I know what type of Europe I desire and this measure is a backward step - other opinions?

 

Sounds like they're trying to recreate the USSR

[Cambon]

Sounds like they're trying to recreate the USSR

 

At last someone else sees it!

 

At a time when unions across the world have been breaking down because ultimately they do not work (e.g. USSR, UK, CZ), Europe still forges ahead.

[Pragmatopian]

It depressed me to read this today. Despite a lot of failings, the EU has had some considerable success in freeing up markets. This seems an entirely retrograde step: when you say 'a social market economy aiming at full employment' what you're really saying is 'an economy where successful companies and individuals subsidize failing companies and individuals'. Better to use your education and migration systems to give companies access to the employees they need to succeed and use social welfare as a safety net to prevent unfortunates from starving to death.

 

A disappointing first move from Sarkozy: it's the kind of shite I'd expect had Segolene Royal (the epitome of style over substance) been elected, but not from him.

[Albert Tatlock]

I thought the front page of the Independent today summed some of the things being rejected here.

 

You, Europe, and your rights

The Government is blocking an EU charter which would protect these fundamental rights for British people. Why?

Published: 22 June 2007

• Eugenics
  
• Torture
  
• Human trafficking
  
• Data protection
  
• Right to protest
  
• Working rights
  
• Deportation
  
• Industrial action
  
• Child exploitation
  
• Health care
  

[Pragmatopian]

I thought the front page of the Independent today summed some of the things being rejected here.

 

You, Europe, and your rights

The Government is blocking an EU charter which would protect these fundamental rights for British people. Why?

Published: 22 June 2007

• Eugenics
  
• Torture
  
• Human trafficking
  
• Data protection
  
• Right to protest
  
• Working rights
  
• Deportation
  
• Industrial action
  
• Child exploitation
  
• Health care
  

 

 

Aren't all of these items covered both by existing specific legislation and many of them by application of the Human Rights Act too? I don't see any harm in signing up to a charter confirming this, but I don't see that it would have much impact either.

[Pragmatopian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6232834.stm

 

Oh dear... the phrase 'like herding a bunch of wet cats' has rarely been more appropriate. The idealist in me badly wants the EU to work, but the realist is sitting him down and explaining to him that it'll never be much more than an inefficient talking shop.

 

The EU will only have real value when the representatives of all member states accept that success relies upon their support the EU's autonomy and allow that autonomy to be increased into new areas over time: not ever-more viciously neutered. A politician willingly accepting the curtailment of their own power for the greater good is a rare beast that I am unlikely to have the privilege to see within my own lifetime.

[Chinahand]

I don't know what to make of the agreement over the weekend.

 

Partly I'm suspicious that removing a flag, an anthemn and the word constitution is a bluff and this is basically the same thing which Blair promised the UK a referendum on previously.

 

He'll claim this isn't so as he's renegotiated his red lines making it just an ammending treaty just like all the other ones - Mastricht, Nice etc. So there is no need for a referendum. Is that really true - the comment I usually listen to is mixed.

 

The FT makes these points:

 

Instead of a foreign minister, the EU will have a “high representative for foreign affairs and security policy”. The job will be identical.

 

Instead of spelling out that EU law has primacy over national law, it merely refers to “well settled case law”.

 

The treaty will be called a “reform treaty”, not a constitutional treaty.

 

Mr Blair tried to prevent the charter on fundamental rights from being made legally binding. He failed. But he has won a lengthy protocol insisting that it cannot be used to challenge UK laws: in effect, it is another opt-out. It may not be legally enforceable, for it discriminates in the application of fundamental rights. Europe has become a continent of several speeds.

 

Yet for all its faults, this is a deal that should break the institutional deadlock. It must be finalised by an inter-governmental conference before the end of the year. Then the EU can focus more attention on the most pressing issues on the agenda, such as energy security, climate change and relations with Russia. It is time to move on.

 

The Economist says this:

 

The agreement struck in Brussels ... provides a detailed mandate for a formal meeting later in the year when an actual text will be thrashed out. At the heart of it is a web of compromises so complex that the deal had to be explained four times to the specialist national diplomats who track EU legal processes for each member government.

 

First, in order to placate Polish complaints that it was the big loser from a rejigged voting system, EU bosses agreed to keep the current system of voting in force until 2014, with a further three year transition period after that. (And at the end of that period the EU may, if it chooses, revert back to the old system). In other words, a supposedly pressing crisis has been resolved by putting it off for a decade or so. ...

 

Britain ... — led for the last time at a European summit by Tony Blair—secured four substantial opt-outs from treaty provisions. These were aimed at preserving British national control over bits of policy where the EU wants more co-operation. The list includes social security policy; cross-border police and judicial co-operation; and moves to beef-up the EU’s common foreign policy. Britain will fence off its domestic legal system from an EU charter of social and civil rights that was bolted on to the original constitution. British business leaders said that was necessary to prevent activist EU judges from unpicking restrictive trade-union laws introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.

 

For some of the delegates at the summit, the opt-outs confirm the existence of a “two speed Europe” with Britain in a laggards group. For those who want to see more European integration it is unclear whether such a situation is one to relish or to resent.

 

My opinion is that these matters are now so complicated that it is almost impossible to judge whether they are for the good, or ill.

 

As a result EU politics are left to the viceral attitude of the electorate which is often divorced from the reality of the technical debate their politicians are undertaking - for example the biggest issue on the street worring about the EU is immigration and the free movement of polish workers to the UK etc. This is meant to be a settled issue in the EU and is nothing to do with what the politicians were debating. It makes a referendum difficult - most people will not be voting on what they are being asked to decide, but a much broader question of whether they "like" the EU or not.

 

That isn't the best, but in my mind neither is letting a political elite, divorced from reality make these types of decisions!

 

All a bit of a mess!