Then you misunderstand.

Your currency for long term viability will need a collective stance to ensure all players play by the same rules. France and Germany have already set aside the 'rules' where they are concerned regarding national debt. It is not a collective. It is the powerful telling the weak what to do and then doing something different.

Eventually there will be a crisis in which the smaller nations will rebel against more serious aspects of that will come out from this uneven collective relationship. Collectivism is usually a sign or aspect of equality. It is not reflected in the present political structure that you prefer, unless of course you happen to be France.

I used the term collective 'a cooperative enterprise'(OED) advisedly, collectivism 'the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it' (OED) was not quite what I meant.

The issue of the exemptions given to France and Germany will not break the Euro, the stability and growth pact, ironically a German stipulation to restrict countries like Italy and Greece, has proved an economic straightjacket.

The pact needs reform, most likely borrowing would be measured over the economic cycle, rather than a 12 month period.

But whilst the Euro zone continues to maintain a current account surplus and a healthy trade balance I wouldn't bet against it. The Dollar on the other hand...........

I think you miss my point.



It is not that the debt could not be discussed or the structure changed. It is that the two largest countries chose to unilaterally dismiss the issue out of hand in favor of personal best interest. Rather than trust to the collective organization, the individualnation took preference.

I have discussed the risks of the Euro elsewhere. It's history is much too short and its influence questionable.

All members of the 'triumvirat', France, Gb, and Germany need to concede their national interests in favour of the whole, if the EU is to have a viable future. Ironically, Germany at the same time also needs to assert itself, despite the comparison made (unfairly, I believe)to its 20th century history. It is a question how the EU is in practical terms to be run in future, is the ideal a 'collective', with individual interests secondary to the greater good, and each member's position having equal or proportionate weight to form the overall position, or are the interests of individual memberstates paramount, up to the point of the EU representing nothing more than a loose partnership of nations in the same worldregion?

I'd say your focus on France reflects an American perspective and gives it more importance than I think it has, or should have.

Thank you, this adds some insight and perspective. I suggest the EU also develop special ops teams, so we can go in and apprehend war criminals such as Bush, Rumsfeld and Keeney without putting civilians unnessecarily at risk.
Due to my humanitarian believes, I argue against the employment of nuclear weapons to target Washington in order to end the war against terrorism and restore peace. I do not justify nor condone such attacks, not even when employed by legitimate institutions as the EU, representing the majority of those they claim to represent, with the expressed goal of peace and targetting strategic spots where military command centers are located, but I understand the motivation behind it, and I'd say it would be legitimate.

Blather,



You'll no doubt remember that up to the Civil War, and sometime past, the plural 'were' verbalized America. When it was finally acceptable to say, "the United States of America 'was', well, a new accomodation had been reached.

United States of Europe 'is'? Probably never.

(Your knowledge/research seems to be darn good. Any idea when we went from 'are' to 'is?')

I didn't miss your point, I just skipped over it. With due respect I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

It might seem that France and Germany are cocking a snoot at the smaller members of the EU, and the media will no doubt deem, at some later date, that there is a crisis, but there won't be a rebellion, compromises will be reached, it's in no European nations best interest to break the union.

The smaller nations will undoubtedly take the opportunity of ganging up on France and or Germany over some other unrelated matter.

I think Stroll is quite right to suggest There would appear to be a deep seated Anglo-Saxon need to continually portray the French as the bad guys.


I said A 'United States of Europe' is a chimera not The , but an interesting point.

Monsieur Le Tonk, French I assume, with impeccable command of the English language? What are your views on Chirac and who France may come up with alternatively in future?

European but not French. My English would be less impeccable without my using a stand alone text editor with a good spell checker plus a copy of the OED, but thank you for the compliment.

Chirac, 'La Girouette', the weathervane, has been adept at adjusting his politics to suite the times, if not for his stance against the US in the invasion of Iraq his legacy would amount to little.

I think Chirac will stand for re-election in 2007, he'll be 75 then and I don't recall him having any health problems, he will also wish to avoid any possible corruption charges; Mitterand was 72 when he stood for re-election in 1988.

If not then Dominique de Villepin the current minister of the interior comes across as forceful and willing to stand up for France, he is seen as Chirac's natural successor, it's likely he will replace the unloved prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, in the near future.

The minister of finance, Nicolas Sarkozy, is set to leave the cabinet in late November to take over the leadership of the governing UMP party.

François Hollande leader of the Socialist Party did well in regional elections in March this year - the electorate may well opt for a change.

My two cents worth.

Thank you gentlemen for a very intelligent hijack of what started as a very "stupid" thread.

I wonder when this mind boggling lunacy will peter out?
Did you hear about the genius who choked on a 12 gauge today at ground zero?

What is it you are smoking dude ?

Trying to divert the conversation again into irrelevance since you are not getting your point accross ?

Butterfly the only irrelevance is your existence on this board. Go back to admiring your "Thai kickboxer stance", only make sure you close the bathroom door, its not good for your mother to see you admiring yourself.

Looks like I hit a nerve with the thai boxing thing. Are you gay or just jealous ?

it's OK to cry

No, just having fun with your inadequacies. Really, saying that your "thai kickboxing physique" somehow intimidates people in a bar. How utterly juvenile.

Of course then accusing someone of being gay because they point out how silly you look, simply confirms the emotional issue you seem to have trouble with.

No, I just thought it was funny to see "rednecks" playing the tough cowboy like Bush shutting up when I made my points. For sure, if I had looked differently, they would have bullied me. It just proved my point that Americans like to bully the weaks while shutting up when confronted with other bullies (NK, Iran, China)

Strange you haven't made any points here. All you have done is rant and rave and discuss how your "Thai kickboxing physique" intimidates people.

After the laughter, do they buy you a drink? Are you old enough to drink? You appear more apt to bullly than the Americans, but I am sure the only Americans that you bully are there in the background of your bathroom mirror.

Silly boy.

No, I didn't, you did. You keep refering to the "Thai Boxing" as an argument. Straw man again ?

It's OK to cry

As I have explained, it illustrates the intellectual abyss that you must cross.

Is it true you still live with your mother?

No, thats not fair. I am sure that living with your mother has no real impact on your intellect. Only your maturity.

Getting personal again ? it's OK to cry

I fear you spoke too soon!

touchez

Monsieur Le Tonk:

I missed your earlier post, but here is my answer to it.




No, the point is valid. Even a molehill can trip an unthinking traveler. If Germany and France felt the structure, which they heavily influence was not sufficient in dealing with their internal problems, then it shows an inherent weakness and lack of confidence in that system. One that could very well crack under more serious issues later.



It depends on the crisis. In the American civil war it was in the Southern States best interest to break away. The North refused to accept the right of succession (which in truth did not truly exist but was a traditional hold over from the articles of confederation). Nations may indeed seek an exit should it be in their best interest, and if the crisis is such that everyone needed to "hang together or hang separately", it becomes more important for some central elected authority to make such decisions. ther are many crisis that can make such things possible.



No, but Chirac as the speaker of the French people, has made charges and has leveled charges, along with the French government that are inconsistent and often without foundation.

Consider the most recent snubbing of the Iraqi interim prime minister Allawi. Do you believe that to be in the best interest of Europe? Iraq? the world even? Yet France was willing to (or you may say their elected official Chirac) put all of this at risk and even imply support for the insurgency (ie read the terrorist al-Zirqauwi) through his actions. Sometimes the label of bad guy fits.

European politics and politicians are, I think, a little more robust than you give them credit for.

All the member states of the EU, including Britain, know that their futures lie within the EU. We will I'm sure have several tiers, the most integrated being those within the Euro zone and the Schengen agreement; some countries may opt to integrate further. But I suspect the move to a common constitution will fail because the referenda in various countries will reject it.

My only concern is the move toward a standardisation of tax regimes within the Euro zone, this makes no sense. With interest rates set by the ECB the only mechanism each country has to reign spending in or out is through taxation, similarly variations in business taxes allow countries to attract investment. I fail to see why the Germans are so fond of this notion. The shortcoming of the Growth and Stability pact may make them reconsider the wisdom of it, though countries such as Britain will veto the proposal in any event.

Regarding Chirac, I don't disagree, it would have been better for him to have met with the interim Iraqi prime minister, Ayad Allawi, though Allawi did make an unfortunate remark about 'spectator states' which was unlikely to make Chirac warm to him!

I believe they are significantly less robust than you characterize them.

I think Europe is mangled by the long grey face of the bureaucrat in Brussels. For instance, of such a robust stance existed, why is it that Germany never voted on the change over to the euro? I can think of many Germans who are not happy with what it has done to their prices. Yet it was a bureaucratic move, not a political debate that brought Germany the euro.

Without a common consitution, Europe will have no mechanism by which they can create the governmental environment in which country expectations can be clearly defined. In other words, the rules of the road for such a confederation. Otherwise you have a rapidly growing democracy that continues to make decisions based on bureaucratic steps rather than preconcieved principles. This is what makes a country's constitution so powerful, it defines expectations of both the governed and those governing.



Germans or in the least German government have an innate fear of inflation. So the interest rate mechanism is there more to control inflation than debt. I think it would be an interesting discussion regarding EU economic policy. Such policy often coincides between culture and government (which is influenced by culture).




I agree that the statement from Allawi was not heartwarming for Chriac, however, given Chiracs general intransigence and contextually continuous attacks on Iraq and its legitimacy, I would say the Allawi statement had the effect of a raindrop in a hurricane.

Ahhh, but it furnished a suitable excuse on which to hang the snub.

An excuse would have been invented. Chirac could just as easily have pointed to the US for an excuse not to meet with Allawi. The great and sad thing regarding polite society is the ease at which artificiality is used and created for any circumstance, both for good and ill.