Blair is slippery.
But then politics is a dirty game. And Blair is the most politically astute player on the field.
You cant blame the Brits for smashing the EU. The French and the Dutch did that. Chirac's attitude is pretty contemptible, I dont recall him getting aerated over the British rebate before the French people told him what he could do with his constitution, and somehow I feel it wouldn't be an issue now if they had voted oui and ya.
Its a bit like -having dropped the vase on the tiled floor - pointing out a blemish in the quality of the glaze.
Good article, Walter, thanks.
Yesterday I'd already wanted to link these in:
Blair says rebate is "anomaly", must go
A story that's got much the same as Walter's, plus:
Quote:Poland, the biggest of the poor east European newcomers that stand to lose most from a budget delay, announced an initiative to try to salvage a deal, saying it would use a meeting with the French, German and British foreign ministers on June 27 to press for an early deal.
And:
Blair tries to win over EU states
Quote:Key points Blair tries to appease annoyed Euro states UK blamed for causing problems at EU Summit by new EU members But plans for UK's budget payments will meet criticism from opposition at home
[..] Story in full BRITAIN should pay more towards the European Union's budget, Tony Blair said yesterday, trying to soothe eastern European states who blame him for capsizing last week's EU summit.
New EU members have turned on the Prime Minister, accusing him of vetoing a budget deal and costing them millions in European aid.
[..] British officials fear that the anger of the "new" Europeans could undermine the UK presidency of the EU which begins next month, so Mr Blair yesterday risked Tory attacks by telling the House of Commons that he would like to reform the budget to take more money from countries such as Britain.
[..] The new EU countries have often supported Britain in Europe. Winning back their confidence will be a key aim of the British presidency, Mr Blair said. "We've got to be explaining to them that our opposition to the deal is not opposition to enlargement."
And then there was this ...
Quote:Berlusconi rubs salt in Finnish wound at food body
PARMA, Italy (Reuters) - Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi repeated one of his most famous diplomatic gaffes on Tuesday by insulting the cuisine of Finland which Italy beat to host the new European Food Safety Authority.
"I've been to Finland and I had to endure the Finnish diet so I am in a position to make a comparison," Berlusconi told local dignitaries ahead of the inauguration of the EFSA in the northern Italian town of Parma.
The 68-year-old media tycoon also said he had used his masculine charm to persuade Finland's president, Tarja Halonen, to give up her country's claim to host the European Union agency.
"I had to use all my playboy tactics, even if they have not been used for some time," said Berlusconi.
At the opening ceremony later in the day, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso would have the chance to sample Parma's famous smoked ham, Berlusconi said, and see for himself that it was better than traditional Finnish food.
"Barroso today will be able to taste our 'culatello' as opposed to smoked herrings from Finland," he said to laughter from the audience.
Italy fought hard to host the EU agency and Berlusconi reportedly told a summit of European leaders in December 2001: "Parma is synonymous with good cuisine. The Finns don't even know what prosciutto is."
The line has become one of the most memorable of Berlusconi's long list of indiscretions.
[..] During a photograph with other EU leaders in Spain in February 2002, Berlusconi raised two fingers behind the head of the then Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Pique, in the traditional Latin gesture for a cuckold.
Interesting dialogue here. I agree that Blair is an accomplished politician and very likely has a good strategy planned for all of this. However I do find it odd that he is accepting the UK rebate as an issue without simultaneously insisting on a reexamination of the agricultural subsidy from which France benefits so much. This particularly intrigues me given that, even with the rebate, the British are, per capita, much greater donors to EU income redistribution than are the French. Perhaps Blair is attempting to win early support from the new EU members, even at the cost of increased Tory opposition at home (a storm which he can easily weather) - all to corner the French later on.
Interesting to note that Steve now acknowledges he shares my contempt for the duplicitous actions and policies of the French government Poor Schroeder, who will likely depart the political scene, has at least made a serious attempt to reform Germany's over-regulated labor market. Chirac, on the contrary loftily proclaims that - in France at least - black is white, and the French can continue their social and economic policies, undisturbed by economic reality.
The more I read of Silvio Berlusconi, the more I like him.
"Interesting to note that Steve now acknowledges he shares my contempt for the duplicitous actions and policies of the French government "
not in all things. Chirac commanded the high moral ground over the Iraq war
I assume the wink meant you don't believe it either. The only thing Chirac ever commanded is the graft from the political machine of the city of Paris - a fact that compels him to do what it takes to stay in office, protected by the immunity it grants.
He wouldn't recognize high moral ground if he stumbled on it by accident.
I've stumbled over the moral high ground once. I've tried getting on it ever since, but I keep slipping off.
Just an aside:
the agricultural subsidy from which (not only) France benefits so much, were one of the reasons creating the European Economy Community:
the EEC subsidized Europe's agricultural sector, claiming that Europe, in the course of the 20th century twice experienced severe famine and that securing the ability to feed itself was of strategic importance. Subsidies for agriculture consumed c. 70 % of the EEC revenue, countries such as FRANCE and the NETHERLANDS, the latter the "Garden of Europe", being the main beneficiaries, while Germany became the most significant net contributor to the EEC budget.
Well, and since the UK agriculture was of less importance (= no real value of getting to power or staying there) ... ... ...
Walter,
The famines in Europe were the direct result of wars started by Europeans and between them. They were not at all the result of any external (to Europe) action or threat. This is a rather specious rationalization.
Moreover these are the same arguments offered everywhere to justify protectionist economic and trade policies, whether involving agriculture, minerals, or manufactured products.
I don't doubt that, George.
But this doesn't change the facts, though. :wink:
georgeob1 wrote:The famines in Europe were the direct result of wars started by Europeans and between them. They were not at all the result of any external (to Europe) action or threat. This is a rather specious rationalization.
Moreover these are the same arguments offered everywhere to justify protectionist economic and trade policies, whether involving agriculture, minerals, or manufactured products.
One thing that annoys me is that the protectors of the European farm policy never have to defend themselves on principle. They are upholding an anachronism from the feudalistic age, an anachronism of the big agrobusinesses for the big agrobusinesses by the big agrobusinesses. Nevertheless, they never have to answer the perfectly appropriate charge that they want this peddling of feudalism to remain
the main occupation of the EU. The same people chastize Tony Blair that "his vision of Europe as just a free trade, free migration zone is simply not enough". And Tony Blair takes them seriously enough to bother denying that this is his vision of Europe.
I ought to know better, but this annoys me.
Thomas - not quite accurate: the defenders of the CAP do defend themselves on principle, this being not the irrational "20th century European famines could come back" argument proposed by Walter, but rather a self-defense argument against similarly massive subsidies by the US (sugar, rice, corn) Australia (fruit) and other trading blocs.
Speaking of Australia, it's wonderful to see a (presumed) agricultural economics expert of that nation posting in support of this thread
http://www.able2know.com/forums/about8728-0-asc-2080.html
even though the real winners in that part of the world are the New Zealanders, who liberalized everything years ago (fan of the late Robert Muldoon here btw hoping for input by any ANZ posters who actually have even a remote clue on the subjectof this thread).
Being only intermittently able to post due to firewall I would like to thank the Australian poster for the sudden interest in the EU!
As to Blair's forthcoming EU presidency and Africa in particular:
_____________________________________________________________
"Tony Blair is focusing closer to home, on the Common Agricultural Policy, an integral part of the original European project. He is doing this partly to divert attention from the UK's indefensible budget rebate, and partly to kick an enemy when he's down - Jacques Chirac after the double No vote on the constitution. This is opportunism, in true Brit style, but that does not mean the Prime Minister is wrong (just as the French president is not wrong to attack the rebate, even if his motives are equally artful). The CAP was born in the postwar years, when food aplenty in Europe was not a given. Its aims were to guarantee supplies and subsistence levels for farmers and to slow down flight to the cities.
It is now an abhorrence, not because it disproportionately helps agriculture in France as distinct from other EU members (what would our politicians be saying if we were the main beneficiaries?) but because of its effects on the rest of the world. As Bob Geldof never ceases to point out,
every cow in the European Union receives more money than the daily income of the average African.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/hunger/economy/2005/0620farmsubsidies.htm
_____________________________________________________________
As to the argument that agriculture was the basis of today's EU - maybe so, and only if Coal and Steel are edible
HofT wrote:Thomas - not quite accurate: the defenders of the CAP do defend themselves on principle, this being not the irrational "20th century European famines could come back" argument proposed by Walter, but rather a self-defense argument against similarly massive subsidies by the US (sugar, rice, corn) Australia (fruit) and other trading blocs.
If you Americans want to pay for my lunch by subsidizing your exports to us, by all means go ahead! Who except big European agrobusinesses could possibly have something against it?
As an enlightened continent, we have to set our priorities about who is more deserving.
Beg pardon, Thomas, the quote by Geldorf was clearly marked as such - not my own words; personally I think Africa is a lost cause.
I will agree the U.S. protection of selected agriculture markets (Sugar & corn) (Helen are you sure about rice?) is both expensive and wasteful. Sugar production in particular is harmful environmentally where it is grown (north of the Everglades in Florida) and adds nothing much to a world market that already has a surplus of that commodity. The corn subsidy is absurd, in that we can produce corn quite competitively without it.
We would do African nations more good by encouraging the production for export of agricultural commodities rather than sending them governmental cash and loans which end up in the pockets of kleptocrats.
Europe in particular continues policies that defeat economic growth in Africa and then congratulates itself on the grants and aid they give in partial compensation for the harm they have done.
From the Economist:
Farm support's deep roots
Jun 22nd 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda
A new report from the OECD indicates that progress on reducing agricultural subsidies in the rich world has been glacial. Unless governments get tough with their powerful farming lobbies and cut their supports, farm subsidies could stymie further progress on world trade liberalisation
LITERATURE about farming often gushes about living in harmony with the eternal rhythms of nature. "Eternal" certainly seems the right word to describe the generous subsidies that rich-world farmers enjoy. For a group whose population is rapidly shrinking, and whose products have been declining in value for centuries, farmers wield an astonishing amount of political power. Though farm subsidies are the bane of liberal and conservative economists alike, farmers have survived decades of trade liberalisation almost unscathed, and may well emerge from the current Doha round of World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations with little alteration to their pampered existence.
A new report, released by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) on Tuesday June 21st, shows just how little progress has been made on liberalising agriculture over the past two decades. While the value of farm protection in OECD countries has fallen from 37% of farm receipts in 1986-88 to 30% in 2002-04, progress has faltered since the late 1990s. The OECD estimates that the value of support to its producers was a staggering $279 billion in 2004.
There is, though, wide variation between OECD members. Producer support is worth less than 5% of farm receipts in New Zealand and Australia, but amounts to roughly 20% throughout North America, 34% in the European Union, and a whopping 60% in Japan. And while the overall value of support has fallen from 2.3% of GDP in 1986-88 to 1.2% now, the reductions have been uneven (see chart above). Canada and Mexico have made deep cuts in their farm supports, for instance, while Turkey has actually increased its supports.
While progress on reducing support levels may be painfully slow, most governments have managed to reduce the more distorting kinds of protections. Instead of subsidies tied to production levels, which were responsible for the infamous mountains of butter and lakes of wine that used to plague European agriculture officials, countries are slowly moving towards compensation based on acreage or historical support levels. In 1986-88, the majority of OECD countries had 90% or more of their support programmes linked to either current outputs or inputs; that number has now fallen below 75% in most of Europe, though it remains above 90% in Japan and South Korea.
But agricultural policies in rich countries still distort markets at home and abroad. Worse, they hurt the poor. Price-support mechanisms make domestic consumers pay more for their food, hitting low-income families the hardest. And for farmers in poor countries, OECD agricultural policies are disastrous. If those farmers aren't being kept out of export markets by quotas or tariffs, they are being undercut in domestic markets by heavily subsidised produce from the developed world. While some have argued that rich-world subsidies are a net boon to poor countries because they provide cheap food to the masses, in those countries the poorest are often rural farmers, whose lives would be improved by higher prices for their products.
Even where distortions have been reduced, legislators have passed up the opportunity to tailor supports to specific beneficiaries or policy goals, such as environmental protection. Instead, new programmes have mostly been drawn along broad lines, the better to maintain the political support of farmers. Payments for acres of land or head of cattle may be better than compensation based on bushels of wheat or gallons of milk, but they still distort the economy, and give farmers incentive to cultivate marginal land.
Farm power
Europe, in particular, is struggling with its cosseted and deeply entrenched farm lobby. France has historically been the biggest obstacle to reform; almost half its area is farmland, and its farmers defend their subsidies vigorously. Thanks to such obstructionism, the EU's common agricultural policy (CAP) accounts for nearly half of its overall budget, even though only 4% of its population still works the land. Though there has been some modest progress on reform in recent years, disputes over the CAP are still acrimonious. A row over its funding was the main reason for the collapse of the EU summit in Brussels last week.
America's agricultural mollycoddling is less egregious, but egregious it still is, and the farm lobby is just as determined to keep the money flowing. In 1996, Bill Clinton signed a farm bill that was supposed to lead to the gradual elimination of agricultural protections. Mr Clinton is long gone, but the protections aren't?-indeed, the 2002 farm package signed into law by George Bush nearly doubled the level of federal subsidy.
This has not bought Mr Bush peace with the farm lobbies, however. Sugar growers are currently working overtime to derail the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which the president is trying to get through Congress before the July 4th holiday. Though other agricultural producers are actually supporting the agreement, the sugar lobby has a good chance of picking off enough Republican legislators to defeat it.
CAFTA is too small to make much difference to the American economy one way or the other, though passing it would give a huge boost to the other countries in the agreement. But politically, failing to pass CAFTA would be a deep blow to the Bush administration. And if the administration cannot manage to pass a small regional trade pact, prospects will look a lot dimmer for securing a substantial new agreement in the Doha round.
Nonetheless, the OECD is looking to the WTO for further progress on subsidies. A hopeful sign is that agricultural protections are beginning to be disputed at the WTO. Since last year Brazil has won WTO challenges against American cotton subsidies and EU sugar protections, on the ground that they far exceed established limits. This week the EU announced plans to cut its sugar subsidies by 39%, despite stiff resistance from uncompetitive European producers. Now that the Uruguay round's "peace clause", which protected farm subsidies from challenge provided they did not exceed 1992 levels, has expired, rich-world subsidies are vulnerable to further onslaught.
But a successful challenge at the WTO does not guarantee the rapid dismantling of farm supports. More than a year after being told to scrap its cotton subsidies, the Bush administration still hasn't put forward a plan palatable to both its own producers and those in Brazil, which is threatening to retaliate by removing patent and copyright protection for American products. Perhaps farmers can be forgiven for thinking that they have eternity on their side.
Quote:Juncker plays the blame game as Blair prepares for EU presidency
By Stephen Castle in Brussels and John Lichfield in Paris
23 June 2005
Tony Blair is being portrayed as the architect of Europe's latest political crisis as he prepares to launch a British EU presidency which is in deep trouble even before it starts.
Ahead of his appearance in the European Parliament this morning, Mr Blair came under direct attack from the French President, Jacques Chirac, and from Jean-Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, who chaired last week's acrimonious Brussels summit.
Meanwhile, Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, called for a public debate on Turkey's ambitions to join the EU - one of the priorities for the British presidency which starts on 1 July.
Brussels is still in shock after last week's bitter summit clash in which a small group of countries, led by Britain, blocked a deal over the EU budget for 2007-13.
Yesterday Mr Juncker received two ovations from MEPs as he gave a blow-by-blow account of how Britain refused to surrender part of its annual budget rebate. Mr Juncker suggested that his plans to reform the rebate were deliberately misrepresented by a British premier determined not to compromise.
The main proposal rejected by the UK would have exempted the costs of spending in the new EU countries - apart from agriculture - from the scope of the rebate. That would have made it worth 5.5bn (£3.7bn) annually - considerably more than now.
"It is not true to say that the [Luxembourg] presidency wanted to kill the British rebate," said Mr Juncker, "we wanted to maintain it in the context of the 15 [countries which made up the EU before it enlarged last year]. We wanted this rebate to show greater solidarity to the new member states. It was wrong to reject this."
Mr Juncker said pointedly that he was explaining to MEPs, "because no one else will and because you're likely to hear other explanations in the near future" - a direct reference to Mr Blair's speech today.
And the Luxembourg premier referred to an offer by former Communist countries to sacrifice some of their subsidies in the interests of a deal. These countries, he said "were giving us a lesson in ambition. I think this is a good reason for those not able to speak the same language to be ashamed of what they did."
Speaking at the weekly cabinet meeting in Paris, M. Chirac argued that almost all governments, including France, had "done everything possible" to agree on an EU budget framework up to 2013. "Unfortunately this was not possible, because of British intransigence," he said.
M. Chirac once again rejected the UK argument that the Common Agricultural Policy must be radically reformed before the British EU rebate can be abolished or reduced. The CAP had been extensively reformed only three years ago, M. Chirac said.
After a meeting of the EU Commission, Mr Barroso questioned the policy of negotiating Turkey's EU entry. "We should discuss the signal that was sent by the electorate regarding Turkey," he said, though he added that plans to start talks on 3 October should continue.
The investigative newspaper Le Canard Enchainéreported that M. Chirac had come back from Brussels describing Mr Blair as "like Thatcher only worse - as arrogant as she was but even more selfish".
Diplomatic sources in Paris suggest, however, that M. Chirac was content with the summit. The row had distracted attention from the French "no" to the constitution and disrupted Mr Blair's hopes of introducing a British path to EU reform in the next six months.
Source
I agree - especiall re the last paragraphe.
And I wonder, if he really will say - like Gordon Brown - that the EU the EU must reform or die.
