March 13, 2010
Quote of the Day
Besides a virtual subscription to the excellent restaurants of Brussels, paid for by someone else, one of the great attractions of the European project—the development of a super-state, the equal of the United States or China—is of course power. The power that is desired is not that which is sufficient to self-determination, to live as far as possible as one pleases, but to push other people about, to dominate them, to loom large in their calculations, to make their decisions for them. This is rarely far from the minds of those who support the project who feel humiliated and irritated that, having ruled the world roost for so long, Europe has been reduced to world insignificance (in the matter of power) just at the very moment that they themselves have achieved office and would have been so much more important if they had been born a hundred years earlier.
From The New Vichy Syndrome: Why European Intellectuals Surrender to Barbarism
Posted by Michael J. Totten at March 13, 2010 3:23 AM
Comments
Could the same be said for many great ancient civilizations around the world? Do many former great powers look forward to the re-emergence of their countries?
Examples would include Europe, Russia, Turkey/Ottomans, Egypt, Iraq/Caliphate/Babylon/Assyria/Sumeria, Iran/Persia, Uzbekistan/Seljik Turks, Mongols (who mostly live in China), China, Pakistan, India?
Posted by: anan at March 13, 2010 7:39 am
Examples would include Europe, Russia, Turkey/Ottomans, Egypt, Iraq/Caliphate/Babylon/Assyria/Sumeria, Iran/Persia, Uzbekistan/Seljik Turks, Mongols (who mostly live in China), China, Pakistan, India?
That's a hell of a paragraph lol. You know what strikes me as being odd, is that the proponents of a strong European Union (whatever it is called) won't even deny it. They really do seem to think they know what's best for everyone else, and they think that "if only" they had the power to force everyone to do things their way, the world would be a better place. I'm not clear at all how that fits in with their supposed high-minded idealism and liberalism, but maybe one has to be born (Western) European to understand such things.
Could the same be said for many great ancient civilizations around the world? Do many former great powers look forward to the re-emergence of their countries?
Sure, anand. But the Europeans have a better shot of succeeding than any other "fallen" power does. Personally, I think the effort's been doomed from the start, because at the end of the day you can't form an effective union between various entities that have as much historical animosity towards eachother as many Europeans do. The elites in Western Europe seem to have a very high opinion about how much they've evolved in the last 50 years, but they discount the fact that they were living in the shadow of the US and were facing a grave external threat in the form of the USSR during that time period. They've been very sheltered. There's no doubt in my mind they will revert to their old ways and start slaughtering eachother as soon as they begin to ascend on the power scale. It's what Europeans do.
Posted by: Craig at March 13, 2010 10:58 am
Could the same be said for many great ancient civilizations around the world? Do many former great powers look forward to the re-emergence of their countries?
Sure, anand. But the Europeans have a better shot of succeeding than any other "fallen" power does. Personally, I think the effort's been doomed from the start, because at the end of the day you can't form an effective union between various entities that have as much historical animosity towards eachother as many Europeans do. The elites in Western Europe seem to have a very high opinion about how much they've evolved in the last 50 years, but they discount the fact that they were living in the shadow of the US and were facing a grave external threat in the form of the USSR during that time period. They've been very sheltered. There's no doubt in my mind they will revert to their old ways and start slaughtering eachother as soon as they begin to ascend on the power scale. It's what Europeans do.
I agree that the loss of the soviet union may weaken eu unity. However it has been gone for most of EU history - as opposed to EEC. Ironically the biggest curb to EU power appears to be Russian gas policy.
A bigger concern seems to be the economic troubles of the minor states - such as Greece. While I can see Germany getting tired of the lack of fiscal discipline of a minor state, I can't see a minor state pulling out. Those signs along the highway "sponsored by the EU development fund" are too enticing. And I can't see Brussels giving up bossing around the minor states.
Most likely disintegration would be a non Euro state wanting out. Like Denmark or Britain.
Posted by: Sean at March 13, 2010 11:24 am
A bigger concern seems to be the economic troubles of the minor states - such as Greece. While I can see Germany getting tired of the lack of fiscal discipline of a minor state, I can't see a minor state pulling out. Those signs along the highway "sponsored by the EU development fund" are too enticing. And I can't see Brussels giving up bossing around the minor states.
Most likely disintegration would be a non Euro state wanting out. Like Denmark or Britain.
If only we, the wise ones (and our special friends), had the power...the (taxed) masses would surely appreciate how our "new" version of centrally planned cronyism, unlike all those other versions, would finally, this time, bring to all...
Churchill was right: unteachable.
Posted by: Paul S. at March 13, 2010 2:06 pm
Churchill was right: unteachable.
I always like how Communists, Islamists, Fiscal Conservatives, Libertarians, (Europeans?) often proclaim that their system would certainly work, once everyone else converts (and there is no longer any competition). Nice. I have a plan like that too... Heh!
Posted by: Sean at March 13, 2010 5:39 pm
Yes, I've been thinking about this. The EU is looking more and more like the trans-national empires of medieval Europe. As central government loses accountability to the national governments and the people this will increase. If not now, then soon, the peoples of Europe may find their national governments cannot protect them and they have no way to protect themselves from the arbitrariness of EU officials. Walk the streets of Brussels and you find a lot of drunken young people who feel they don't control their own future, a bunch of non-European immigrants who believe they do, and the bureaucracy who just want to enjoy the fruits of office.
Posted by: Solomon2 at March 13, 2010 7:56 pm
I always like how Communists, Islamists, Fiscal Conservatives, Libertarians, (Europeans?) often proclaim that their system would certainly work...
Sean, you forgot to mention neocons up in there, for some strange reason :P
If not now, then soon, the peoples of Europe may find their national governments cannot protect them and they have no way to protect themselves from the arbitrariness of EU officials.
Solomon2, I think that's the idea. That's the "utopia" that European elites have been promoting since the late 1950s. A society in which the illuminati protect the masses from their own miserable ignorance and provide the peasants... er... the citizens... with everything they need.
As you say, it's the same old shit. Only difference is that in the new world order it's supposed to academics and intellectuals running the show instead of whoever has the biggest stick and the most friends.
Posted by: Craig at March 13, 2010 11:31 pm
Sean, you forgot to mention neocons up in there, for some strange reason :P
If not now, then soon, the peoples of Europe may find their national governments cannot protect them and they have no way to protect themselves from the arbitrariness of EU officials.
Solomon2, I think that's the idea. That's the "utopia" that European elites have been promoting since the late 1950s. A society in which the illuminati protect the masses from their own miserable ignorance and provide the peasants... er... the citizens... with everything they need.
As you say, it's the same old shit. Only difference is that in the new world order it's supposed to academics and intellectuals running the show instead of whoever has the biggest stick and the most friends.
Craig, it isn't too late for Europe to save itself - but they have to want to do it. Otherwise, ennui will set in and they'll become easy prey to violent internal disorders and eventual dictatorship.
Posted by: Solomon2 at March 14, 2010 3:21 am
But it isn't cool to stand up for yourself and/or your culture.
Besides, if you do so at the perceived expense of some other group with a (perennial) grievance, you'll find yourself labeled "racist," "colonialist," or "oppressor."
And there is nothing worse (not even being a mass murderer, or advocating mass murder) than being labeled "racist," "colonialist," or "oppressor."
(Until further notice.)
Posted by: Barry Meislin at March 14, 2010 3:54 am
Besides, if you do so at the perceived expense of some other group with a (perennial) grievance, you'll find yourself labeled "racist," "colonialist," or "oppressor."
And there is nothing worse (not even being a mass murderer, or advocating mass murder) than being labeled "racist," "colonialist," or "oppressor."
(Until further notice.)
The book looks like a load of anti-European (French) horseshit. Incidentally, I wonder who taught Europeans the "vapid hedonism" the blurb so decries?
And there's nothing particularly profound about that particular quote either. Other than a forced and transparent attempt to equate the desire with European integration with that of the global racial hegemony of European colonialism.
Lord knows the Europeans want to have their voice heard. Their nations are small and insignificant on their own. Yes, European integration means "power" when negotiating on greenhouse gas emissions or battling against American protectionism. European integration however does not dominate or coerce anyone. The EU (Germany) is a civilian power, a set of trading states composing the largest economy in the world, and that has a had positive influence on the surroundings. The desire for Europe has helped put Eastern Europe the Balkans on the right track. But it is hardly domineering.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 14, 2010 5:54 am
And there's nothing particularly profound about that particular quote either. Other than a forced and transparent attempt to equate the desire with European integration with that of the global racial hegemony of European colonialism.
Lord knows the Europeans want to have their voice heard. Their nations are small and insignificant on their own. Yes, European integration means "power" when negotiating on greenhouse gas emissions or battling against American protectionism. European integration however does not dominate or coerce anyone. The EU (Germany) is a civilian power, a set of trading states composing the largest economy in the world, and that has a had positive influence on the surroundings. The desire for Europe has helped put Eastern Europe the Balkans on the right track. But it is hardly domineering.
Ombrageux,
The book looks like a load of anti-European (French) horseshit.
I agree it's anti-French, but that's only because this brand of utopian socialism is and always has been primarily a French ideal. However, that's not to say there aren't plenty of political opportunists in other European nations who will go along with the program, even knowing what the eventual end-state will look like.
Incidentally, I wonder who taught Europeans the "vapid hedonism" the blurb so decries?
Just a guess here: The French? :P
Oh, I forgot... you're not real big on history. Perhaps you could do some research on the French court from about the 13th century to the French Revolution? And for that matter you might want to look at the glorious revolution itself which wasn't much beyond an orgy of bloodshed, chaos and corruption... so much so that it completely disgusted Thomas Jefferson, who as most people (but maybe not you?) was one of the foremost revolutionaries of the era and a big supporter of the revolution in France... until he saw what was happening.
And there's nothing particularly profound about that particular quote either.
I'd be a bit surprised if you thought any criticism of something you supported was "profound". Partisans don't make a habit of endorsing the views of the opposition, eh?
Other than a forced and transparent attempt to equate the desire with European integration with that of the global racial hegemony of European colonialism.
That's the ironic part, no? All the idealistic anti-colonialists in Europe are enthusiastically signing up to do it all over again. A "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" moment. And they don't even try to hide it. They want their empires back.
Lord knows the Europeans want to have their voice heard.
Their voices are heard now. Europeans have 2 out of 5 vetoes on the UN security council. The UN serves a European agenda. They are already punching far beyond their weight. They don't just want a voice in the international community - they want to dominate it. I thinks that's the primary cause of anti-Americanism in western Europe. They see the US occupying the position that they believe is rightfully theirs.
Their nations are small and insignificant on their own.
What's wrong with small and insignificant? That's good enough for most the nations of the world... but it's not good enough for Europe?
By the way, I view that as an admission that the purpose of the EU is power. The ability to impose the will of Europe on non-Europeans.
Yes, European integration means "power" when negotiating on greenhouse gas emissions or battling against American protectionism.
American protectionism? lol
I take it economics is not your game either.
European integration however does not dominate or coerce anyone.
It sure as hell tries, doesn't it? The EU released a statement about the Iraqi elections being fraudulent, just yesterday.
The EU (Germany) is a civilian power...
Germany again!? Figures...
...and that has a had positive influence on the surroundings.
A positive influence? Such as?
The desire for Europe has helped put Eastern Europe the Balkans on the right track. But it is hardly domineering.
That statement is contradictory, you know. You state that the EU has put countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans on the right track, and then you state they aren't domineering. If I put you on the right track, I'm guess "domineering" would be the nicest of the names you would call me. But maybe not to my face. Seeing as how I must have some kind of leverage over you in order to get you on "the right track" in the first place.
Posted by: Craig at March 14, 2010 9:15 am
The book looks like a load of anti-European (French) horseshit.
I agree it's anti-French, but that's only because this brand of utopian socialism is and always has been primarily a French ideal. However, that's not to say there aren't plenty of political opportunists in other European nations who will go along with the program, even knowing what the eventual end-state will look like.
Incidentally, I wonder who taught Europeans the "vapid hedonism" the blurb so decries?
Just a guess here: The French? :P
Oh, I forgot... you're not real big on history. Perhaps you could do some research on the French court from about the 13th century to the French Revolution? And for that matter you might want to look at the glorious revolution itself which wasn't much beyond an orgy of bloodshed, chaos and corruption... so much so that it completely disgusted Thomas Jefferson, who as most people (but maybe not you?) was one of the foremost revolutionaries of the era and a big supporter of the revolution in France... until he saw what was happening.
And there's nothing particularly profound about that particular quote either.
I'd be a bit surprised if you thought any criticism of something you supported was "profound". Partisans don't make a habit of endorsing the views of the opposition, eh?
Other than a forced and transparent attempt to equate the desire with European integration with that of the global racial hegemony of European colonialism.
That's the ironic part, no? All the idealistic anti-colonialists in Europe are enthusiastically signing up to do it all over again. A "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" moment. And they don't even try to hide it. They want their empires back.
Lord knows the Europeans want to have their voice heard.
Their voices are heard now. Europeans have 2 out of 5 vetoes on the UN security council. The UN serves a European agenda. They are already punching far beyond their weight. They don't just want a voice in the international community - they want to dominate it. I thinks that's the primary cause of anti-Americanism in western Europe. They see the US occupying the position that they believe is rightfully theirs.
Their nations are small and insignificant on their own.
What's wrong with small and insignificant? That's good enough for most the nations of the world... but it's not good enough for Europe?
By the way, I view that as an admission that the purpose of the EU is power. The ability to impose the will of Europe on non-Europeans.
Yes, European integration means "power" when negotiating on greenhouse gas emissions or battling against American protectionism.
American protectionism? lol
I take it economics is not your game either.
European integration however does not dominate or coerce anyone.
It sure as hell tries, doesn't it? The EU released a statement about the Iraqi elections being fraudulent, just yesterday.
The EU (Germany) is a civilian power...
Germany again!? Figures...
...and that has a had positive influence on the surroundings.
A positive influence? Such as?
The desire for Europe has helped put Eastern Europe the Balkans on the right track. But it is hardly domineering.
That statement is contradictory, you know. You state that the EU has put countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans on the right track, and then you state they aren't domineering. If I put you on the right track, I'm guess "domineering" would be the nicest of the names you would call me. But maybe not to my face. Seeing as how I must have some kind of leverage over you in order to get you on "the right track" in the first place.
Solomon2,
Craig, it isn't too late for Europe to save itself - but they have to want to do it. Otherwise, ennui will set in and they'll become easy prey to violent internal disorders and eventual dictatorship.
I agree with you except about the part about it not being too late :)
I think the time for Europeans to look at what they were doing with the EU and say "hey, wait a minute..." was 10 years ago.
Posted by: Craig at March 14, 2010 10:29 am
Craig, it isn't too late for Europe to save itself - but they have to want to do it. Otherwise, ennui will set in and they'll become easy prey to violent internal disorders and eventual dictatorship.
I agree with you except about the part about it not being too late :)
I think the time for Europeans to look at what they were doing with the EU and say "hey, wait a minute..." was 10 years ago.
The book looks like a load of anti-European (French) horseshit.
Wrong. It's written by an English intellectual who left Britain to retire in France. He is extremely critical of Britain and insists France is a better ordered society and more aesthetically pleasing.
Incidentally, I wonder who taught Europeans the "vapid hedonism" the blurb so decries?
Hedonism isn't math. You don't learn it in class.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 14, 2010 10:55 am
Wrong. It's written by an English intellectual who left Britain to retire in France. He is extremely critical of Britain and insists France is a better ordered society and more aesthetically pleasing.
Incidentally, I wonder who taught Europeans the "vapid hedonism" the blurb so decries?
Hedonism isn't math. You don't learn it in class.
Craig - Louis XIV's sexuality does not invade my living room. From Marilyn Monroe and Elvis, Woodstock, jeans, and free love, to Beyonce and Lady Gaga.. That is hedonism. And I don't think it is particularly reproachable. But to say somehow Europe is uniquely decadent in this regard, given the origins of democratized hedonism, is pretty grotesque.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 14, 2010 12:04 pm
Craig - The positive role the EU plays in the Balkans and Eastern Europe is akin to that played by the U.S. in Western Europe after WW2. Not in the military aspect, but in democratizing, allowing free trade, and giving significant economic assistance.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 14, 2010 12:09 pm
Would that happen to be the same EU that essentially helped birth the Balkan catastrophe in the 90s and then had to be shamed into doing something to fix it by Clinton?
Posted by: Barry Meislin at March 14, 2010 1:54 pm
Craig - Louis XIV's sexuality does not invade my living room. From Marilyn Monroe and Elvis, Woodstock, jeans, and free love, to Beyonce and Lady Gaga.. That is hedonism. And I don't think it is particularly reproachable. But to say somehow Europe is uniquely decadent in this regard, given the origins of democratized hedonism, is pretty grotesque.
What an odd thing to say. Considering the Europeans think the US is conservative almost to the point of being puritanical. They even make fun of us for our prudish ways. And here you are, setting the record straight for us! Thanks! :D
Posted by: Craig at March 14, 2010 2:17 pm
What an odd thing to say. Considering the Europeans think the US is conservative almost to the point of being puritanical. They even make fun of us for our prudish ways. And here you are, setting the record straight for us! Thanks! :D
On a slightly associated direction:
I've heard some rumours that there are several European countries now considering reinstating their own currencies and forgetting about the Euro. Perhaps they are just rumours but I'll bet the French and Germans aren't too happy about bailing out the Greeks and who knows perhaps there are people in those countries that feel they could do better on their own than carrying others on their backs.
Its possible that the attitudes expressed by the people quoted in the book reflects their desire to revive previous individual empires rather than a grand European one.
Posted by: yesjb at March 14, 2010 3:41 pm
I've heard some rumours that there are several European countries now considering reinstating their own currencies and forgetting about the Euro. Perhaps they are just rumours but I'll bet the French and Germans aren't too happy about bailing out the Greeks and who knows perhaps there are people in those countries that feel they could do better on their own than carrying others on their backs.
Its possible that the attitudes expressed by the people quoted in the book reflects their desire to revive previous individual empires rather than a grand European one.
Ombrageux,
Are you a Brit living in France?
Posted by: del at March 14, 2010 5:12 pm
Are you a Brit living in France?
"Are you a Brit living in France? "
If that question was directed at me, the answer is no.
Posted by: yesjb at March 14, 2010 6:20 pm
If that question was directed at me, the answer is no.
"The book looks like a load of anti-European (French) horseshit."
And who among us is more intimately acquainted with horseshit than ombrageux?
Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 15, 2010 1:10 am
And who among us is more intimately acquainted with horseshit than ombrageux?
Frankly, most of the EU could not care less about misguided French policies.
The French love/hate relationship to the Anglosphere is akin to Smeagol's yearning for the Ring: "Mee wantsss it, gollum!" And by "it", they mean the power and the prestige of English as an universal communication language.
Nevertheless, that ship sailed long ago, about the time of Napoleon's empire, and they are aware of it; and so, the principal modus vivendi is to kick the giant's ankles; at the very least, by sour speeches.
Posted by: Marian Kechlibar at March 15, 2010 3:03 am
The French love/hate relationship to the Anglosphere is akin to Smeagol's yearning for the Ring: "Mee wantsss it, gollum!" And by "it", they mean the power and the prestige of English as an universal communication language.
Nevertheless, that ship sailed long ago, about the time of Napoleon's empire, and they are aware of it; and so, the principal modus vivendi is to kick the giant's ankles; at the very least, by sour speeches.
My apologies, del,I thought that was from Ombra... not to him/her.
Posted by: yesjb at March 15, 2010 3:39 am
Craig;
What's wrong with small and insignificant? That's good enough for most the nations of the world... but it's not good enough for Europe?
With dramatically declining birthrates, it may not be good at all.
Posted by: Toady at March 15, 2010 8:55 am
What's wrong with small and insignificant? That's good enough for most the nations of the world... but it's not good enough for Europe?
With dramatically declining birthrates, it may not be good at all.
Shouldn't the EU work on the welfare of europeans and dealing with thorny issues like immigration and the ills of their collective economies as opposed to trying to rebuild an old world/empire that has long since passed them by? And who's fault was it? Certainly not America who wanted no part in their quarrels until it was forced to act on their behalf!!!
Posted by: Mason at March 15, 2010 9:08 am
del - What makes you ask? Unless you know the answer..
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 15, 2010 9:11 am
Every realistic person can see that there is no way how any pseudo-colonial could be resurrected. Natives of Asia and Africa have long outgrown the dwindling Euro populations, and
a) either have accepted classically liberal economic policies (Singapore, Hong Kong...) and have no interest in importing EU-style social democracy,
b) or have gone south through application of various one-party, one-dictator policies (Zimbabwe, Yemen...) that the result is an absolute disaster and no sane power would entangle with these bombs waiting to explode,
The real questions are:
1) where will the limit of the Russian power be? How will Ukraine turn up? East, West or none?
and
2) Can the realists prevent France from becoming Northern Algeria, Holland from becoming Northeastern Morocco and England from becoming Western Pakistan?
(Personally, I think they can. An average European has had enough of Islamic immigration. But some of the politicians are in deep denial about this reality - and proud of the denial).
Posted by: Marian Kechlibar at March 15, 2010 11:21 am
a) either have accepted classically liberal economic policies (Singapore, Hong Kong...) and have no interest in importing EU-style social democracy,
b) or have gone south through application of various one-party, one-dictator policies (Zimbabwe, Yemen...) that the result is an absolute disaster and no sane power would entangle with these bombs waiting to explode,
The real questions are:
1) where will the limit of the Russian power be? How will Ukraine turn up? East, West or none?
and
2) Can the realists prevent France from becoming Northern Algeria, Holland from becoming Northeastern Morocco and England from becoming Western Pakistan?
(Personally, I think they can. An average European has had enough of Islamic immigration. But some of the politicians are in deep denial about this reality - and proud of the denial).
Their nations are small and insignificant on their own.
--OK. I don't believe this - even if Germany is something of a foreign policy pygmy. But it doesn't gel well with your statement of implied effect that a "civilian power" like Germany has, though. Not sure where you're going with Europe challenging "US protectionism" as China - the EU's second major trading partner - isn't exactly a high-minded team player on the economic front either. It would be great if some of the usual anti-Yanqui suspects in the EU (and no, they are not all like that) took the industrial and intellectual theft of European technological and economic advances committed by China a little more seriously. China does not pursue free trade policies; for the most part, the US does, and the EU tries to.
I'm not entirely on board with the thorougly negative thrust of Darymple's argument, either. Even given the various disagreements between EU member states over agricultural policy and competition, the removal of border tariffs and burgeoning trade between European states doesn't whiff of some overarching conspiracy to lord it over the cultural backwaters of the world (though maybe the climate change fiasco does); I'd think an arrangement where European businesses and customers can buy and sell what they like, almost whenever they like, belies that accusation. Moreover, as the world's largest economy, how could the EU not have some pull on the world stage? On the other hand, I do agree with Darymple and others here, however, that the general European refusal to invest more time and finances in instruments of "hard power" is a problem.
I think he attributes far more uniformity to the (admittedly not always encouraging) ambitions and motives of EU political elites than is fair - as the rather disgraceful recent behaviour of a UKIP MP in Brussels demonstrates, some would like to see the entire organization thrown out with the bathwater, which would be a shame given the relative peace and prosperity the EU has helped along in the last sixty years (with a great deal of American help, a fact some do not know and others refuse to admit).
But that's just my two pence. Have at it, folks.
Posted by: John at March 15, 2010 11:38 am
--OK. I don't believe this - even if Germany is something of a foreign policy pygmy. But it doesn't gel well with your statement of implied effect that a "civilian power" like Germany has, though. Not sure where you're going with Europe challenging "US protectionism" as China - the EU's second major trading partner - isn't exactly a high-minded team player on the economic front either. It would be great if some of the usual anti-Yanqui suspects in the EU (and no, they are not all like that) took the industrial and intellectual theft of European technological and economic advances committed by China a little more seriously. China does not pursue free trade policies; for the most part, the US does, and the EU tries to.
I'm not entirely on board with the thorougly negative thrust of Darymple's argument, either. Even given the various disagreements between EU member states over agricultural policy and competition, the removal of border tariffs and burgeoning trade between European states doesn't whiff of some overarching conspiracy to lord it over the cultural backwaters of the world (though maybe the climate change fiasco does); I'd think an arrangement where European businesses and customers can buy and sell what they like, almost whenever they like, belies that accusation. Moreover, as the world's largest economy, how could the EU not have some pull on the world stage? On the other hand, I do agree with Darymple and others here, however, that the general European refusal to invest more time and finances in instruments of "hard power" is a problem.
I think he attributes far more uniformity to the (admittedly not always encouraging) ambitions and motives of EU political elites than is fair - as the rather disgraceful recent behaviour of a UKIP MP in Brussels demonstrates, some would like to see the entire organization thrown out with the bathwater, which would be a shame given the relative peace and prosperity the EU has helped along in the last sixty years (with a great deal of American help, a fact some do not know and others refuse to admit).
But that's just my two pence. Have at it, folks.
I find this video, with a speech from the British conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, a good explanation of what's wrong with the EU: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boMTNjj-YfE (The interesting part starts at 2:25).
I live in Europhile Belgium where our entire press believes we need more European integration and where all politicians dream of a career in the EU. That's probably why I like Mr. Hannan that much: his views are quite refreshing to me.
Posted by: Tijl at March 15, 2010 2:44 pm
I live in Europhile Belgium where our entire press believes we need more European integration and where all politicians dream of a career in the EU. That's probably why I like Mr. Hannan that much: his views are quite refreshing to me.
Toady,
With dramatically declining birthrates, it may not be good at all.
That doesn't seem like it should be a problem in a small industrialized country with a modest economy. Isn't that better than having out of control population growth, and not enough decent jobs to go around as people come of age?
John,
Not sure where you're going with Europe challenging "US protectionism" as China...
Yes, anyone who talks about American "protectionism" is either and ideologue or just plain ignorant. The US has the largest trade deficit in the world, by a lot. Which means Americans buy a lot more foreign products than they sell. There's no way to reconcile that fact with an accusation that the US engages in discriminatory trade policies. The one major area that the US does engage in what could be called protectionism is with farm subsidies, which a lot of people like to whine about but do they ever stop to consider what would happen if the US gov't *didn't* pay farmers to grow crops? US food aid feeds a pretty significant portion of the world's population. If the US stopped providing food aid, because we weren't producing enough food to make it viable, who would pick up the slack? China? Somebody else? As soon as somebody volunteers to do that, I'll start agitating for the US to drop subsidized farming.
Even given the various disagreements between EU member states over agricultural policy and competition, the removal of border tariffs and burgeoning trade between European states doesn't whiff of some overarching conspiracy to lord it over the cultural backwaters of the world...
To me, it's proposition that the EU government should be superior to national governments of the member states, while at the same time citizens in the member states don't have any direct say in what the EU does or does not do. If that goes through as intended, there's no doubt in my mind that the EU will start lording it over not just it's own member states but everyone else it can push around as well. And that IS on the agenda :)
Posted by: Craig at March 15, 2010 3:02 pm
With dramatically declining birthrates, it may not be good at all.
That doesn't seem like it should be a problem in a small industrialized country with a modest economy. Isn't that better than having out of control population growth, and not enough decent jobs to go around as people come of age?
John,
Not sure where you're going with Europe challenging "US protectionism" as China...
Yes, anyone who talks about American "protectionism" is either and ideologue or just plain ignorant. The US has the largest trade deficit in the world, by a lot. Which means Americans buy a lot more foreign products than they sell. There's no way to reconcile that fact with an accusation that the US engages in discriminatory trade policies. The one major area that the US does engage in what could be called protectionism is with farm subsidies, which a lot of people like to whine about but do they ever stop to consider what would happen if the US gov't *didn't* pay farmers to grow crops? US food aid feeds a pretty significant portion of the world's population. If the US stopped providing food aid, because we weren't producing enough food to make it viable, who would pick up the slack? China? Somebody else? As soon as somebody volunteers to do that, I'll start agitating for the US to drop subsidized farming.
Even given the various disagreements between EU member states over agricultural policy and competition, the removal of border tariffs and burgeoning trade between European states doesn't whiff of some overarching conspiracy to lord it over the cultural backwaters of the world...
To me, it's proposition that the EU government should be superior to national governments of the member states, while at the same time citizens in the member states don't have any direct say in what the EU does or does not do. If that goes through as intended, there's no doubt in my mind that the EU will start lording it over not just it's own member states but everyone else it can push around as well. And that IS on the agenda :)
The only "ignorant" people are those who unquestioningly assume that because the American ideology means Americans *talk* about free trade, that all of a sudden, that means they are not, like every other country, going to be tempted to protect domestic lobbies and industries through protectionism and subsidies.
Concretely:
* In 2003, the EU bandied against the US on recently imposed tariffs on foreign steel imports.
* The US, like the EU, has massive agricultural subsidies and protection for its farmers against foreign competition.
* This year, Sarkozy and Brown have attacked the US for arbitrarily going to a domestic company (Boeing) to build an Air Force refueling tanker. (The US MIC exists not merely for "defense," but also serves to allow Congressmen and Senators to claim to create jobs in their districts.)
The chasm between America's lived reality and the claims of the American ideology are the biggest threat to that nation today. Your comments on American "free trade" are only one example of this gap.
Incidentally, the person who said the Asians are rejecting social democracy has no idea. The major wealthy Asian democracies - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan - all have welfare states and national health insurance systems.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 15, 2010 3:49 pm
Concretely:
* In 2003, the EU bandied against the US on recently imposed tariffs on foreign steel imports.
* The US, like the EU, has massive agricultural subsidies and protection for its farmers against foreign competition.
* This year, Sarkozy and Brown have attacked the US for arbitrarily going to a domestic company (Boeing) to build an Air Force refueling tanker. (The US MIC exists not merely for "defense," but also serves to allow Congressmen and Senators to claim to create jobs in their districts.)
The chasm between America's lived reality and the claims of the American ideology are the biggest threat to that nation today. Your comments on American "free trade" are only one example of this gap.
Incidentally, the person who said the Asians are rejecting social democracy has no idea. The major wealthy Asian democracies - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan - all have welfare states and national health insurance systems.
Millions of Americans don't support the current administration's "(un)American ideology", as over 56 million of us made clear last November 4th and in local elections since. But it doesn't surprise me that, to someone like Ombrageux, a centrally planned, bureaucratically micromanaged welfare state and national insurance system seems "democratic." "Coercive compassion", I'll label it.
Posted by: Paul S. at March 15, 2010 5:09 pm
Ombrageux, you are arguing the same semantics that Euros and other America-bashers argue. Cherry-picking a few cases and then wildly distorting them doesn't change reality. It just makes you look biased - against your own country.
Posted by: Craig at March 15, 2010 7:35 pm
Craig,
Ombrageux is a British national, not an American.
Posted by: del at March 15, 2010 8:44 pm
Ombrageux is a British national, not an American.
Del, I had thought I saw him implying he was American. Good news, if true :)
Posted by: Craig at March 15, 2010 8:54 pm
Craig,
He has implied that, here and there...Honesty, intellectual nor otherwise, is not one of his strong suites.
Posted by: del at March 15, 2010 9:12 pm
He has implied that, here and there...Honesty, intellectual nor otherwise, is not one of his strong suites.
It's funny how, the greater the distance the opinionated are from the topic, the more skewed the views can be. On two separate occasions, Japanese students ask to see my gun (which I don't own.) Puzzled and curious, I asked why they had made that particular request. "Because our parents (who, it turned out, had never met any Americans---but liked American movies) told us all Americans own guns", they responded.
Oh, and I also learned (this time from young Hong Kong residents) that I and my fellow countrymen were---invariably and inherently!---not only violent, but lazy, selfish and greedy as well. Cliches can be very revealing, about those using them. If Michael ever sees me spewing cliches about Middle Easterners I want him to ban me.
Posted by: Paul S. at March 15, 2010 10:27 pm
Oh, and I also learned (this time from young Hong Kong residents) that I and my fellow countrymen were---invariably and inherently!---not only violent, but lazy, selfish and greedy as well. Cliches can be very revealing, about those using them. If Michael ever sees me spewing cliches about Middle Easterners I want him to ban me.
If Michael ever sees me spewing cliches about Middle Easterners I want him to ban me.
Paul, the odds that I'll ban you are vanishingly close to zero. No one who has been banned from this site would have ever written that sentence.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 15, 2010 10:44 pm
Paul, the odds that I'll ban you are vanishingly close to zero. No one who has been banned from this site would have ever written that sentence.
Your bs tolerance exceeds mine by a wide margin, Michael, to your credit.
Best wishes.
Posted by: Paul S. at March 15, 2010 10:47 pm
Best wishes.
To me, it's proposition that the EU government should be superior to national governments of the member states, while at the same time citizens in the member states don't have any direct say in what the EU does or does not do.
--I see. Please let me respond by noting that it's not entirely accurate to say citizens in member states have no direct say in EU affairs. EU citizens vote goes to the EU Parliament, and Parliament in turn has the power to amend and reject legislation.
One problem with this arrangement is that Parliamentary affairs are simply not all that interesting to most Europeans and therefore the voter turnout for MEP elections is low (and by extension we can ask how representative these officials are).
That may change over the next few years and decades, but for the moment the people who are active enough to be involved in any electoral process tend to concentrate on local and regional elections in their home state.
Another issue is that small countries have in the past enjoyed disproportionate influence over EU affairs than the major states. Not sure what changes are on the way to address this.
Posted by: John at March 16, 2010 9:48 am
--I see. Please let me respond by noting that it's not entirely accurate to say citizens in member states have no direct say in EU affairs. EU citizens vote goes to the EU Parliament, and Parliament in turn has the power to amend and reject legislation.
One problem with this arrangement is that Parliamentary affairs are simply not all that interesting to most Europeans and therefore the voter turnout for MEP elections is low (and by extension we can ask how representative these officials are).
That may change over the next few years and decades, but for the moment the people who are active enough to be involved in any electoral process tend to concentrate on local and regional elections in their home state.
Another issue is that small countries have in the past enjoyed disproportionate influence over EU affairs than the major states. Not sure what changes are on the way to address this.
del/Craig - What do either of you know about my nationality?
None of you address my points. I do not claim the EU is not protectionist. The Americans have an ideology which portrays themselves as manly adherents to free market competition, in fact they are just as mercantilist as everyone else.
Someone also made a statement suggesting the welfare state is a European is some sort of bizarre, purely European phenomenon. In fact, all wealthy democracies (including America) have welfare programs, and especially, old age pensions, unemployment benefits, housing benefit and so forth. All but America have either national health schemes or heavily regulated health sectors that make them more or less "universal". The reason, of course, if because they are bloody good ideas!
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 16, 2010 3:59 pm
None of you address my points. I do not claim the EU is not protectionist. The Americans have an ideology which portrays themselves as manly adherents to free market competition, in fact they are just as mercantilist as everyone else.
Someone also made a statement suggesting the welfare state is a European is some sort of bizarre, purely European phenomenon. In fact, all wealthy democracies (including America) have welfare programs, and especially, old age pensions, unemployment benefits, housing benefit and so forth. All but America have either national health schemes or heavily regulated health sectors that make them more or less "universal". The reason, of course, if because they are bloody good ideas!
None of you address my points. I do not claim the EU is not protectionist.
How can anyone address your points, when they consist of nonsense like this:
The Americans have an ideology which portrays themselves as manly adherents to free market competition, in fact they are just as mercantilist as everyone else.
You seem to not even know that "free market" is part of capitalism, and both are inherently "mercantilist" as you put it. Is there even anything to argue about when your baseline thesis is factually incorrect? It happens in discussion after discussion. I've tried to correct you on a number of occasions and it's getting a little old to be honest. You're never going to be able to reach the point where people express differences of opinion when you're operating on a different set of facts than everyone else is using.
Posted by: Craig at March 16, 2010 5:07 pm
How can anyone address your points, when they consist of nonsense like this:
The Americans have an ideology which portrays themselves as manly adherents to free market competition, in fact they are just as mercantilist as everyone else.
You seem to not even know that "free market" is part of capitalism, and both are inherently "mercantilist" as you put it. Is there even anything to argue about when your baseline thesis is factually incorrect? It happens in discussion after discussion. I've tried to correct you on a number of occasions and it's getting a little old to be honest. You're never going to be able to reach the point where people express differences of opinion when you're operating on a different set of facts than everyone else is using.
"The Americans have an ideology which portrays themselves as manly adherents to free market competition, in fact they are just as mercantilist as everyone else."
"The cardinal rule of mercantilism was 'to sell more to strangers yearly than we consume of theirs in value'"
Thomas Sowell
On Classical Economics
Labels on products I buy in the United States show the opposite in America currently.
"Incidentally, during the Great Depression of the 1930s, the United States had an export surplus---a 'favorable' balance of trade---in every year of that disastrous decade."
Thomas Sowell
Posted by: Paul S. at March 16, 2010 10:44 pm
"The cardinal rule of mercantilism was 'to sell more to strangers yearly than we consume of theirs in value'"
Thomas Sowell
On Classical Economics
Labels on products I buy in the United States show the opposite in America currently.
"Incidentally, during the Great Depression of the 1930s, the United States had an export surplus---a 'favorable' balance of trade---in every year of that disastrous decade."
Thomas Sowell
"The one major area that the US does engage in what could be called protectionism is with farm subsidies,...As soon as somebody volunteers to do that, I'll start agitating for the US to drop subsidized farming. "
OK then, I do have to say Craig that there *is* a lot of argument for ending subsidized food aid. There's a great interview here with an expert on African economics: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0%2C1518%2C363663%2C00.html
Of course, then domestically in the US it becomes an emotional issue because of the idyllic picture many tend to get of saving the 'family farm.' But, in reality, most of the subsidies go to big agri-business anyway, not mom-and-pop.
Posted by: KellyC at March 16, 2010 10:59 pm
OK then, I do have to say Craig that there *is* a lot of argument for ending subsidized food aid. There's a great interview here with an expert on African economics: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0%2C1518%2C363663%2C00.html
Of course, then domestically in the US it becomes an emotional issue because of the idyllic picture many tend to get of saving the 'family farm.' But, in reality, most of the subsidies go to big agri-business anyway, not mom-and-pop.
"How Farm Subsidies Became America's Largest Corporate Welfare Program" by Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation is worth a read, if the topic interests you; a little Googling will bring it up.
Posted by: Paul S. at March 16, 2010 11:54 pm
Post a comment
