Where Islam is Popery and Muslims the enemy within

[sihhi]

"The EU is based on Thatcherite economics, that's why the Thatcherites passed the Single European Act paving the way for the Euro......Thatcher lifted exchange controls on capital, the Amsterdam Treaty enshrined this in policy. "

Agreed Slovakia has been forced to slash its business tax rates to line up for entry.

 

[Dr. Christmas]

Scaremongering pure and simple greenman.

Again, your evidence consists of one politician's quote.

I'd be more impressed with a range of stats, directives, nature of debate as evidence of a 'Thatcherite' approach from the EC/EU.

I just don't buy it.

Don't have nightmares now!

 

[laptop]

The Ryan Air Charleroi "inducements" would be another example. The Walloons' Regional government are not allowed to decide on matters directly affecting them, it is a matter for the Commission.

Especially in the sort of EU you appear to be talking about, it would seem to be a really bad idea to put "competition policy" - that's laws against cartels and bribery and such in English English - in the hands of local authorities.

If the Euro-sceptics you support are the Greens, then your choice of this example shows how you've decided "federal bad" and then gone around trying to rake up evidence. A consistent Green would not support local authorities' "right" to subsidise climate change from taxation. They might well want someone somewhere to impose tax on aviation fuel and increase landing charges. And to wait to see whether kickback stories emerge. And it'd be odd for them to pick a far-right local authority as an example.

If you support either of the other groups of organised Euro-sceptics standing in June - well, the kindest thing I can say is I hope you die in your sleep.

Oh - and the Committee of the Regions is a sop to regional politics (particularly Catalunya if I remember rightly) and its (non-)operation contradicts the meaning you ascribe to that quote.

 

[greenman]

For me I would rather have a democratic set up that I totally disagreed with on most areas of policy, than an undemocratic set up which imposed everything I believe in.

I have much more sympathy with the Nordic Green Left and their allies than the large number of quislings of the Green/EFA (English Greens and SNP excepted - though not Plaid judging from their reps cringing performance on Question Time last week)group of MEPs. The ONLY redeeming feature of UKIP and the Tories is that they occasionally chuck a spanner of the works of the metropolitan elite, but in the end, they are all part of the problem.

There are no short cuts to social and political change, and it will not be imposed from above.

 

[Dr. Christmas]

fuck off with yer quislings

Sorry, but how are the Green/EFA group 'quislings'? The fact that you differentiate between the SNP & Plaid demonstrates conclusively that you don't know what you're talking about. Their Euro policies are almost identical.

The more you use such offensively emotive language the less credibility you have.

I for one take strong exception to being lumped in with that Norwegian fascist traitor. Justify or Withdraw.

 

[greenman]

I said that not all the Green/EFA group were objectionable - but I stand by the description for the war mongering, social programme slashing,turncoat traitor Fischer and his dodgy pal Cohn-Bendit and their superstate promoting "realo" cadres.

My apologies to Plaid if I have got them wrong, but their spokesperson on Question Time last week was the most craven apologist for Euro federalism I have seen in a long time - maybe he is just a-typical? The SNP spokesperson at an anti-single currency meeting the other week however sounded bang on and promoted a "confederal Europe" in opposition to the projected federal superstate. You accused me of being utopian when I suggested this as the ideal future, but then reading your view of the ideal Euro future on another thread I can find little to disagree with - other than that a confederal Europe of nations and regions cannot be achieved by refusing to point out the history, underlying ideas and plans of those pushing federalism.

Perhaps we agree more than we acknowledge. Forgive therefore my angry way of expressing myself, but years of being patronised by the Guardian/Independent style federalist Europhiliac op-ed has left me easily agitated!

 

[sihhi]

Dr C

I'd be more impressed with a range of stats, directives, nature of debate as evidence of a 'Thatcherite' approach from the EC/EU.

Not necessarily Thatcherite but the Lisbon agenda is certainly neo-liberal:

Here is a Swedish perspective:
http://www.socialistworld.net/index2.html?/eng/2004/03/24eu.html

Telecom is one ‘success‘ of the Lisbon Agenda. The goal was to break up and privatise the former state monopolies. This has taken place, with the reduction of tens of thousands of jobs. But what about the promise of lower prices? “Local call prices have not fallen as much as expected and were no lower in 2003 than in 1997…And in several member-states including Belgium, Greece, Spain, Italy, Austria, Portugal and Sweden local call prices have risen over recent years“, says the Scorecard. Cuts in prices would in fact be more likely if there were no shareholders demanding bigger profits from the privatised companies.

Gas and electricity are supposed to be fully ‘liberalised‘ by 2004 for companies and 2007 for households. In Sweden, we have seen the consequences already, where electricity now is traded in the same way as shares. The prices (meaning costs to the consumer) can differ from one day to the next, but in general they have increased dramatically over the last few years. The energy sector‘s profits, on the other hand, have increased more than most other sectors.

Water is next. The Commission is turning its attention to water supplies. The EU's water sector has a turnover of 80 billion euros a year – more than the gas sector. The EU parliament wants to speed up “full competition“ in railway transport. Some governments, including France, have opposed it. They point to the sorry state of the British rail network as evidence of the dangers of rapid liberalisation. They advocate the same path as the British government – only slower - to avoid both rail chaos and political repercussions.

The EU has been planning to have a single financial market by 2005. This goal seems more and more unrealistic. The Scorecard points to some of the national tensions involved over the so-called takeover directive. “German businesses and politicians have fought hard against this proposal, fearing that prominent German companies such as Volkswagen could become vulnerable to foreign takeovers“. As a result, member states can opt out of this proposal.

For all the talk about supporting small businesses, these plans mean the destruction of local companies when transnationals get free access across borders. “In January 2004, the Commission embarked on an equally ambitious plan to create a single market in general services, such as retailing, travel, leisure and information technology“. The threat will be greater in the new member states: 50-70 per cent of workers are employed in small or medium sized companies in Eastern and Central Europe.

The EU also aims to “make it easier for firms to send workers abroad on a temporary basis“. A serious challenge will be posed for trade unions to fight for union contracts for all.

Under the headline “Modernising social protection“, the Scorecard brings up some of the worst attacks on the welfare state, which are, at the same time, policies which have created widespread resistance. The Lisbon agenda wants to increase the effective retirement age by five years, to 65, by 2010. Pensions will be based more on private savings and thereby on a lower level for workers. In Greece, Austria, France and Italy, these proposals have provoked mass struggle, including general strikes. Italy‘s prime minister, Berlusconi, even proposed a 'Maastricht on pensions‘, ie common EU rules and targets, as a way to get around national opposition.

Privatisation and cuts in pensions have gone a long way in the new member states. Many of them are following the Swedish pensions ‘reform‘, when a pension based on the 15 best yearly earnings was replaced with a pension based on 40 years, as well as the compulsory privatisation of a part of the pension.

Poverty is increasing in the EU, as a direct result of cuts and lower wages. 55 million people, or 15 per cent of the population in the 15 EU countries, were at risk of being in poverty in 2001, according to the EU Commission. Britain, Belgium and Poland are mentioned in the Scorecard as countries with a high decree of jobless households.

Here is an Irish perspective:
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws/2002/ws68/euro.html

Here is a Belgian one:
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/february02vandepitte.htm

Here is a Slovenian one without the EU:
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/oct00parenti.htm

 

[rednblack]

hmm some interesting points raised here

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I was thinking "I wonder who bumped this" and guess what?