We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
It must have lost something in translation… Jacques Chirac has announced that Britain must give up its rebate on its EU contributions as a £3 billion (5.5 bn US dollars) ‘gesture of solidarity’ with Europe, whilst at the same time adding the France would do nothing of the sort itself when it came to agricultural subsidies.
Tony, not surprisingly, sadly declined Jacques kind suggestion that he publicly commit political suicide in Britain. I guess they never saw that coming in Paris.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Tone will give in later, after the media heat’s off, in private. Chirac knows this, so no hard feelings.
I suggest that when Mr. Chirac asks for a gesture of solidarity, that y’all offer the same gesture of solidarity to the French that the rest of us do. Make a fist. Hold it up in the air, palm-side facing yourself. Slowly extend the middle finger until it is fully erect. Waggle your forearm back and forth repeatedly.
Whassat?
Oh, you mean Chirac meant he wanted you to show solidarity *with the French.* Oh, okay, I’m sorry. I thought he wanted you to show solidarity with the rest of the free world. Sorry, my bad.
The British public had better understand that hitching its future to the French-German EU monolith will guarantee much more insulting behavior – on an even grander scale than that displayed here by M. Chirac – toward the British people by the French-Belgique mafia in place.
*mouth falls open in amazement at end of 1st paragraph*
I hope the poster above is wrong about Tony giving in to such foolishness after this blows over.
Un. Friggin’. Believable. The French: Ballsy in all the wrong ways, and at all the wrong times.
He will give in. We have the current willy-waving stage in front of the cameras but it’s more important to Blair to be seen as a good little European than defending British interests.
When Straw stated the other day that Britain will defend the rebate he was very careful with his words. The existence of the rebate is not under threat, but how it is calculated probably is.
On Chiraq’s and Schroeder’s meeting in Paris this week:
What a surprise this is.
I suppose a link helps.
You’re missing the point.
Chirac is doing this to deflect attention from his own EU credibility difficulties as a result of the French referendum result. If he can make Britain look like the intransigent country against ‘EU solidarity’ it is perfect for him.
He had absolutely no expectation of any change on the budget rebate when he raised this.
Why else do you think he raised this now? Why has he only ever raised it in the past when he’s in trouble in the EU or when he wants to undermine a British position on some other matter?
Surely you realise that people do this all the time in commercial negotiations (I have had many with French companies and it’s a favourite tactic of theirs)? I found the most effective response was to remain completely placid in the face of their mounting synthetic anger over some issue introduced as a distraction in order to get concessions elsewhere. When the meeting starts to run into lunchtime, their facade cracks, they suggest lunch and their demeanour changes utterly at the prospect of a good meal (at which they are charming – and after which they find it very hard to get ‘angry’ again).
However, if Chirac can get an intemperate response (of the type posted on this blog) he will have achieved his aim. To his credit (not something I say often) Tony Blair handled this very well, simply calmly pointing out the hypocrisy of Chirac’s little tactic in view of France’s lack of EU contributions.
Everyone knows that until and unless the CAP is completely reformed or abolished (which in itself is hardly imminent given the French position), the budget rebate
won’t change. It’s a red herring.
HJHJ, I kinda think he knows that, which is why he added the above. I guess sarcasm is lost on you 🙂
RHW, I was referring to the comments above (none of which appreciated the sarcasm, if sarcasm it was), not the original post.
In fact, Blair and Brown (to their great credit, which is something that I never thought I’d say) have gone further this morning by explicitly and publicly linking any change to agricultural reform, drawing to everyone’s attention that France, whilst one of the richest counties, pays very little and receives huge and unjust agricultural subsidies. Giving up the rebate in exchange for the abolition of the CAP would be a good deal.
HJHJ wins points for “sensible, well-tempered and almost certainly correct response”. Good work.
(although I guess from the English Europhobic point of view, it would be better if the rebate were abolished and the CAP left intact…)
Blair said Britain had ‘been making a gesture to France for decades’.
I’d say it was more like centuries (first recorded Agincourt, 1415).
The price of retaining the rebate, will be for Blair to agree to whatever bits of the constitution the French and Germans want.
There will be referendum, of course.
Oh bum, that should have read “there will be NO referendum”…
I wonder why Chirac bothers. The latest polls show that the French all despise him. I’m sure that no-one believes his bluffing, which makes him look ridiculous.
The fact that after his country rejects the treaty, he has the arrogance to ask for something from us, despite being a lame duck, shows just how much respect he has for European Solidarity.
If it were not for his need to escape jail, I am sure he would have given up the desperate struggle.
John B
From this Eurosceptics point of view it wouldn’t.
What? The UK? I’m afraid you must be mistaken, there’s not much free here.
RHW (what a handle!), yes, I was indeed being sarcastic.
HJHJ, sure but in truth the more antipathy and hostility created, the better if one’s long term aim is the end of the EU as it currently exists. I do not want to see ‘sensible heads’ prevail; I want to see people become radicalized. Only then will people be willing to think the unthinkable… UK out.
We have quite enough parasites in need of delousing at home without needing a an even more remote kleptocratic class infestating us at the European level.
Mmm I read this in the morning paper with wry amusement. Tony and Gordon both had both barrels loaded in waiting for this one well before it emerged.
If this is as good as Chirac is gonna get – he is both useless and desperate. The French will be glad to get rid of him.
As for the end of the EU – over 50 years of peace in Western Europe makes it a hard thing to start to address. If the only constructive suggestion is ‘UK out’ I pity your analytical or policy making abilities.
Good old Jacques. Always out there looking for the bribe….
But then we’re not supposed to call it bribe anymore. It’s the “French cultural exception”.
The idea that the EU is the source of relative peace in Western Europe (ETA and IRA not withstanding) is so bizarre I am not sure you really mean that.
And no, UK out is not my only suggestion, though quite why that strikes you as a bad thing is unclear as all you do is insult without saying why. I have writen all manner of reasons why I think the EU is not a possitive thing as it currently exists and I speak as someone who (a) initially was a great supporter of the Common Market and (b) worked for an EU institution for a while and thus know rather a lot about the reality of how the EU really works.
Perry de Havilland writes:
“The idea that the EU is the source of relative peace in Western Europe (ETA and IRA not withstanding) is so bizarre I am not sure you really mean that.”
Sadly, I rather suspect he does. This must have been on the cue cards dished out to Europhiles prior to the French and Dutch referendums as it was trotted out relentlessly by every EU drone at every opportunity on every occasion.
What I find interesting is the sheer animosity being expressed because of the EU these days. I once regarded the prospect of the unholy alliance being a source of violent conflict as pretty fanciful. I’m less sure of that now.
To be fair, I think The Angry Economist was just saying that Europe has been peaceful and stable for 50 years and that for this reason, people are content not to make radical changes, or abolish the EU which has coincided with peace, as they prefer the status quo to upheaval. This is not quite the same as crediting the EU with 50 years of peace.
About 12 years ago I lived and worked in Brussels (not for the EU). One thing that surprised me (initially) was how sceptical Belgians were about the way the EU worked. This was because they saw that EU staff could afford al the best houses, work the shortest hours, etc.
However, despite this, they and my French colleagues (it was a French company) nearly all parroted the EU line or the misconceptions that their politicians put around. The UK was not popular (it was around the end of Mrs Thatcher’s time) because it was supposedly always arguing with the ‘EU concensus’. When I pointed out that part of the reason why the UK was unhappy was that the UK had (at the time) always made the biggest gross and the biggest net contributions of any EU nation in every year since it joined (despite the rebate) and that France had never made a net contribution, I was completely disbelieved. I was told by several people that it was “well known” that the UK contributed little fiancially and got the most out. They just did not know the facts due to an establishment which preferred to obscure or distort them. I think little has changed.
So the UK government (in the shape of Blair and Brown currently) should realise that there is no use in making their argument to the UK population (who know it anyway) or just to other EU leaders. They have to find a way to make the whole EU’s population know the true story. In this way the pressure really will be on Chirac over farm subsidies.
Firstly, whilst I agree that is logical, taking on the establishment of France, Italy, Germany, Greece etc. on their own ground is a hiding to nothing. A complete waste of effort. Secondly, why would people in other countries want the UK to give less to the EU if that meant they had to give more? Thirdly, why not just take the advantages of a free(ish) trade area and avoid the regulations and absurd political entangements by just going the Swiss route and standing outside not just the sclorotic Euro-zone but the EU itself? It is really a much more simple solution really.
HJHJ was right – I am talking about the reluctance to give up security (generally speaking) of general European cooperation and stability. This may be more of a perception than an actual causal connection.
Folks I am not a tabloid or tabloid journalist nor do I have the mind or limited intellectual scope and ability of one. I wouldn’t credit the EC/EU with 50 odd years of peace. Certainly US military bases helped a lot! So you are wrong on that count GCooper.
I do try and keep comments on blogs short and snappy. I do this thing to get a break from the pages of economic and policy analysis I have to do in the day job.
However, I would like to see EU reform most definitely – and definitely away from Franco-German model. It would be nice to see the UK at least try harder for reform. If it was to pull out of the EU, I would be happier if it wasn’t for the lack of trying.
Perry de Havilland – I haven’t read your stuff, so you may well have a lot of argument to back it up. Whether I’d agree with it or not I Dunno.
Anyhow the debate makes life interesting. I should probably apologise for slagging folks off but sometimes it just does the trick as far as provoking further interesting views to emerge.
Angry Economist writes:
“Folks I am not a tabloid or tabloid journalist nor do I have the mind or limited intellectual scope and ability of one. I wouldn’t credit the EC/EU with 50 odd years of peace. Certainly US military bases helped a lot! So you are wrong on that count GCooper.”
Clearly, you know little about journalism. There is, whatever you may think, great skill in distilling a complex argument into the 100 words of vocabulary an eleven year old might understand.
Few of them, I’m sure, match your own dizzying levels of erudition, but they are probably not quite a stupid as you pretend.
Who can say, but perhaps if you had their clarity, neither Mr de Havilland nor I would have been in any doubt as to what you actually were trying to convey?
Chirac is undoubtedly using Britaisn rebate to deflect his own unpopularity and the fact that it was his country which rejected the grand project. But this is also a collaborative affair,there has been agreement in the EU to blame the failure on Britain,as one official said it was a “Fortunate coincidence” so many members came to the same conclusion.
I doubt if Chirac if Chirac cares one way or another about Britains rebate,but sees it a a good wedge issue to drive between the UK an the “New Europe” Essentially he is forcing the issue to make the UK use its veto thus making a scapegoat to rally the rest of Europe against.
Blair wishes to leave a legacy for posterity,it remains to be seen whether he can bear being remembered as the man who sank Europe,being the champion of the taxpayers who pay his wages might not be enough.
Peter writes:
” Essentially he is forcing the issue to make the UK use its veto thus making a scapegoat to rally the rest of Europe against.”
I think this is the essence of it – a miserable attempt to deflect the attention away from his failure to deliver a French “yes” and the usual alliance with Germany to conspire against Britain.
Why we have anything to do with these posturing clowns I shall never know.
Errmm, excuse me? Exactly WHAT was intemperate about my comment?! I merely noted that I sincerely hope that Tony does not give in to such foolishness.
The rebate of 3 billion is fairly trivial when one totes up the cost of membership of the EU, for instance the cost of complying to regulations that have no relevance to the UK. The government, and the Tories, have always avoided making such an assessment, but some have been done privately. The most authorative was by Civitus (I think that is the name) and the cost came to a staggering 70 billion per annum.
The ammount of the rebate is actually less than one billion when you do the complex sums – see this link(Link) Only the EU could invent this method of making a rebate.
Norway can pick and choose which regulations she adopts, she finds she chooses to adopt about 10% of the regulations. The other 90% she ignores or adjusts to her own national needs.
The rebate and the constitution are both red herrings. For my money the big issue is the Euro and how they are going to stop it crashing.
The rebate of 3 billion is fairly trivial when one totes up the cost of membership of the EU, for instance the cost of complying to regulations that have no relevance to the UK. The government, and the Tories, have always avoided making such an assessment, but some have been done privately. The most authorative was by Civitus (I think that is the name) and the cost came to a staggering 70 billion per annum.
The ammount of the rebate is actually less than one billion when you do the complex sums – see this link(Link) Only the EU could invent this method of making a rebate.
Norway can pick and choose which regulations she adopts, she finds she chooses to adopt about 10% of the regulations. The other 90% she ignores or adjusts to her own national needs.
The rebate and the constitution are both red herrings. For my money the big issue is the Euro and how they are going to stop it crashing.