Third Party & Independents: Archives

err… Chuck old buddy, old pal…

Have you actually READ the EU Constitution? It reads like the IRS Regulations. No One Understands It!!!

I suggest downloading a copy for yourself. I promise you a migraine.

Welcome aboard, Chuck. Excellent article.

You’re absolutely right about the demagoguery. But as a Democrat - that is to say, an optimist - I see a bright future for “equitable opportunity within fair markets and a free society.” It may not include France or Belgium, but there’s real opportunity in Europe if Britain is willing to lead Eastern Europe and “to a greater or lesser extent the Nordic states, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria and Ireland” into the 21st century.

Here’s an interesting article in the Financial Times on the subject. I posted it under the “Non” article, but I don’t know if anyone reads the articles that far down. Apologies if you already saw it.

pandering paranoia pays political dividends

How about: “Pandering paranoia pays political premiums.” NOW, you got yerself a toungue-twister! :)

The EU Constitution’s failure to pass at this time will not stop the European Countries from moving closer and closer together as a united entity. In reality, they have no choice but to do so. And this is so for the very same reasons that the individual states in the US could not survive in this global marketplace inevitability.

With the Asian Pacific Economic bloc, the North American Free Trade countries, and soon, the Middle Eastern Asian trading bloc, European Countries must grow united or fail individually. It is a simple matter of scale in trade agreements and having the massive united consuming base backing a united trade brokering entity to barter the best deals.

Future Scenario Example: APEC can dictate to Britain in 2015 a certain trade price for steel in exchange for British wool. The British say, no, that trade is not fair for our farmers. APEC says, fine, no deal. What happens? APEC turns to Russia for their wool, while GB has to pay even higher prices for steel by buying it through a third party trading bloc which bought it wholesale from China and marked it up for resale to GB. GB loses either way. However, the EU as a trading bloc, has such a vast array of items to trade which China and APEC countries can’t afford to buy through third party trading blocs (middle men), they are suddenly willing to concede a lower wholesale steel price to GB and the rest of the EU in exhange for the lowest wholesale price they will get for all of the EU produced goods and services.

It is a matter of scale. The EU must have a binding document that ties all of their nations to this common purpose and future prosperity under a set of rules that holds that union together through the normal economic temporary imbalances and hardships which permits them enjoy the long term gains and economies of trade scale for the foreseeable future.

It is inevitable, it will happen. Though the Netherlands and France may have to feel some more pinch before they concede to joining the United States of Europe.

Chuck, in the US, I think, we voters have a host of choices. But, philosophically on economic choices we have only two.

Choice one is offered by those who believe and talk loudly of free markets and fairly well managed citizens.

The other choice is offered by those who believe in fairly well managed markets and free citizens.

Listen for these choices on the campaign trail, and one will hear these differing philosophies quite clearly. And the difference is chasmic.

As if the French rejection of the European Constitution wasn’t bad enough, its overwhelming rejection by the Dutch seems to have sealed its doom.

Something I haven’t seen noted much is that the Dutch referendum isn’t binding. That is, the Dutch Parliament could overrule the populace and ratify the treaty anyway.

Of course, it’s not likely with such a landslide, but it’s useful to know.

EU integration is generally a good thing, although I agree with Aldous for once. The Constitution is a monster. It even regulates land purchases in Malta. If actually reading the Constitution was required, nobody would be able to vote on it. It will be good to modify this particular document and go with something simpler.

A united EU will become more free market oriented. That is what scares some voters. A united EU will become more diverse with different nationalities. A united EU will have more mobility of labor as people go where the jobs are. A united EU will allow greater mobility of capital, as investors seek the best returns without so much regard for national barriers. In other words, the United States of Europe will look more like the United States. Great.

On the other hand, the EU has always been an elite enterprise. It is interesting to see the elite reaction to what really are crushing popular defeats. It is sort of like, “Did you feel a bump?”

Oh yeah, as a new writer

Welcome to our society. We are not so bad when you get to know us (although maybe some are worse).

Jack, you are right that barriers to markets will be lowered. But, it is naive to believe the Europeans are going to ever give up their social views. What they will do is bring their social views and market forces into balance, something the US had done from the 1940’s through to the end of the 1990’s with some excesses one way or another along the way.

That mixed economy balance is what propelled the US into the 21st century leadership, and is doing the same for APEC and will do for the EU as well as the future union of Arab and Middle Eastern nations. Not sure if it will ever happen in Africa in my lifetime, or even my daughters, but perhaps in my grandchildren’s lifetime.

David

Don’t underestimate Africa. It is a mess now (most of it) but there is hope. One thing that could help is if a united EU drops its trade barriers. A long shot, but possible.

The U.S. became more competitive as a result of stiffer competition. You recall the Japanese cars etc. The Euros are now facing some of the same pressures and responding in similar (although slower in some faster in other) ways. Some of the E. Euros have more rational, flatter tax structures than we do. Many have private retirement accounts. The Germans are trying to make it easier to move plants and make redundencies. There is hope for the old continent.

This is not in reference to any posts, this is just information.

HI ALL:

JUST NEEDED TO CLARIFY THIS ISSUE;

“MILITARY AWARDS”

ARE NOT “WON” THEY ARE AWARDED BASED ON THE AWARDEES ACTIONS ON THE BATTLEFIELD, OR ELSEWHERE.

It makes it look like a competition when I see the word “won” used to indicate awarding of any military medal or honors. Therefore, I would hope that you will refrain from using it in reference to the awarding of medals in the future. Use words like issued or awarded in the future.

Further, The Purple Heart, created and first issued in 1776, by then General George Washington, it is still in use today. It was/is awarded to those soldiers wounded or killed on the field of battle while engaging the enemy. Want to compete for that?

As Always,
Wayne

I don’t know how I would have voted if I’d been French, but I often wonder how some of us who see the “non” voters as unwise, pampered protectionists would react if we were asked to vote on a constitution creating the “United States of North and South America”. What would such a constitution have to guarantee in order for you to vote for it? What would be your worries? Do you think your cherished way of life would surive it?

Haha! Reed, with the borders the way they are now, we may not need anything so formal. :)

with the borders the way they are now, we may not need anything so formal

AP,

Borders that are (slightly) more permeable would be just one outcome of a United States of North and South America. Consider what might happen if Columbia were literally a United State and our tax dollars were responsible for fixing the organized crime problem there. Or consider what it would cost to build the infrastructure of a nation like Bolivia up to modern standards. Consider that a constitution to such an entity would probably have considerably weaker labor laws and much lower minimum wages than the U.S. itself, which would be just one of the states.

A lot of people in other Central and South America would benefit, of course, since they’d be able to legally move to the U.S and take advantage of higher wages, better infrastructure, etc. But it would no doubt drive down wages in the U.S.

In other words, U.S. citizens would have to do a lot of adjusting, and I doubt they’d volunteer to do it by voting for such a superstate. At least not until China and India have casued a lot more economic pain than they have already.

Reed, I think what you said is pretty much what AP meant, we don’t need to go with formal agreements since what you describe is already happening.

David,

I simply disagree. We see some labor movement but it’s not the same thing at all.

1) Illegal immigrants come to the U.S. but I don’t think they’re driving down wages to a huge degree in most occupations because their choices of work are quite limited. A USNSA would change that dramatically.

2) Our taxpayer dollars are not going to other American nations to any great degree. Think about the costs of doing that. It would the merger of East and West Germany look like child’s play.

3) Our own skilled people currently have a tough time moving to these other nations and/or starting businesses there. In a superstate, this would change dramatically. Moving to Argentina theorectically becomes as easy as moving to Texas from New York.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. What we have now is an extremly weak and toothless version of a United States of North and South America. We get to pull all the strings. In a real political coalition, we’d simply be the richest part of the superstate. Far, far different thing.

So I’m saying that we shouldn’t judge the Europeans who voted against the EU Constitution unless we’re willing to put ourselves in their place. This super-state idea is a tough sell.

The US wouldn’t have a constitution today if it had been written like what the EU is trying to sell. 500+ pages of BS that basicly takes away states rights in many cases.

It would be like telling Mississippi they had to adopt every silly law and reg. that Calif. has.

As a Dutch citizen, I have witnessed the voting of the dutch population last week. There are several reasons for the Dutch to say “NEE” to the European Treaty. However, some people just were discontent with the current national politicians as we are still in an economic dip. What is overlooked, is that the Dutch economy is largely dependent on surrounding economies (i.e. Germany, where 50% of our trade goes too). Anyway, just to give some reasons why one might say no…
- The European single currency, the euro, was introduced January 1st, 2002, and is slowly being accepted in the minds of the people. Many still convert to the ‘old’ currency. Price inflation in several fields is normally blamed on it.
- The Germans insisted on keeping each euro-country in a tight budget, with no more then 3% deficit. This was done to keep inflation low. Which country was the first to break that rule? Germany. For big countries, it seems easier to ‘widen’ the rules of the game.
- Holland pays more then it gets from the EU. This would be fair, if the money is transferred to poorer nations. They would be helped economically, and the EU would pay for infrastructure. But guess who gets more then they get? The richest nation, Luxemburg, gets over 2000 dollars a citizen a year from Brussels.
- Last year, the EU expanded from 15 countries, into 25. The ten new countries were primarily former Eastern (ex-communist) countries. However, the EU does not seem to want to stop yet. For some reason, Turkey seems to be on the list of future expansion. But what would that mean? Something like adding Mexico to the USA. Would everybody in Europe like 70 million muslims to be part of the Union? Not very likely.
.
Overall conclusion: Too much is changing in the last few years for the people in Europe. With the current pace, in 10 years time, the single currency would also be used in the middle east, and even Marocco is part of the European Union.

Thanks for the insight “A Dutch citizen”. I’ve been wondering what role the Turkey question has been playing in people’s mind. It seems to be partly a question of culture (and perhaps some bias) and partly one of economics. It’s also interesting to hear about disputes about which countries get what funds.

I think it’s worth remembering the great number of wars that have been waged in Europe over thousands of years. In that past two centuries alone there were territorial wars, military alliances that plunged the world into war twice, the two World Wars, and totalitarian regimes that committed mass murder. When placed against the backdrop of history, the rejection of the EU constitution is not a surprise, and the fact that such a constitution was in the ratification stage is a significant event in itself. It’s only a matter of time before the constitution is passed.