The people of Europe have voted for paralysis *

White knight · 13-10-2005, 11:35 PM

All in SW

The usual perspective from Kaletsky, who coveniently ignores the inherent bedrock of democracy that it is the people who should decide. They express their hopes, wishes, ambitions etc in the form of govt they elect, and they should be free to do so, even if that takes them to hell in a handcart. Anyone outside that microcosm who thinks there's a better 'ole, should keep his opinions to himself and let them discover reality for themselves rather than have it imposed on them by a dirigiste agency. Freedom means........being free, but that's not good enough for some people or agencies ,who think they have a better way.

John Kelly

The Times, London
October 13, 2005

The people of Europe have voted for paralysis *and perhaps obliteration
Anatole Kaletsky

AFTER THIS WEEK'S creation of a German government in which Angela Merkel
will not even control the Finance and Foreign ministries, all three of the
great European nations that have dominated the Continent's history for 2,000
years Germany, France and Italy are effectively leaderless. They will
almost certainly remain politically paralysed at least until the French
presidential election of 2007. The power vacuum now covering the whole of
continental Europe is almost unprecedented, at least since the disastrous
period between the two world wars.

But is the inability of German, French and Italian voters to choose
effective political leaders and then to decide on clear programmes of social
and economic reform or more precisely the unwillingness to do so a cause
for worry? Or should we instead regard it as a natural product of the
prosperous and comfortable societies that Europeans have created and simply
want to preserve?

Before I try to answer these questions, let me consider the main premise:
that the German elections, along with the French referendum before the
summer, really do represent an important punctuation mark in the history of
Europe: the point when the ambitious market-oriented economic reform
programme that started in the 1950s but really accelerated in the 1990s was
brought to a full stop.

This is the clear message from the composition of the new Government with
all the key reform ministries, including Finance, Labour, Health,
Environment, Transport and Social Services, ceded to the Social Democrats,
who only last month were denouncing the modern market economy as a biblical
plague of locusts, laying waste to Germany's traditional welfare state.

Indeed the main theme of the German election, as of the French referendum
campaign before it, was public rejection of an economic reform agenda that
was demanded by the business and political elites. The market reforms that
would supposedly make Europe the most competitive economy in the world had
been unanimously endorsed by Europe's political leaders in their
now-notorious Lisbon Declaration. But while the business and political
elites across Europe became more and more obsessed with Lisbon's promises of
open markets, competition and globalisation, voters couldn¹t help noticing
that all these reforms, instead of improving their living standards or
working conditions, were making them poorer and more insecure.

In this sense the German election, as much as the French referendum, was a
grand gesture of defiance by voters against their political elites, a
message perceptively summarised by Wolfgang Münchau, a German commentator in
the Financial Times: The German electorate has launched a new era in
European economic policy the post-reform era. After ten years of economic
reforms, the Germans decided they had had enough.

To judge by opinion polls, the French electorate is sending a similar
message, with the conciliatory immobilisme of Dominique de Villepin steadily
gaining ground against the radical promises of a dynamic government from
Nicolas Sarkozy. A similar pattern seems to be developing in Italy, where
the Berlusconi Government has long since abandoned all significant economic
reform plans and now looks like being replaced by a Centre Left even more
committed to preserving the status quo.

The reasons - - - come down to the simple point made by Münchau: reforms
have been tried for a decade and they have failed to produce the promised
increase in living standards or economic growth. Reforms have not delivered
results because central banks have refused to support them with stimulative
monetary policies and also because politicians have implemented them in the
wrong order, starting with unpopular deflationary measures such as pension
cuts, while delaying market liberalisation and financial deregulation that
would have boosted wealth and created jobs. But all this is water under the
bridge; the question now is whether the end of reforms should be seen as a
disaster, an opportunity or a non-event.

At the European level, the unity of the German and French electorates in
rejecting liberal reforms ends Tony Blair¹s hopes of leading a pro-market
consensus in Europe. On the contrary, the new coalition Government in
Germany will find common cause with an ultra-cautious Chirac Government to
re-create a powerful Franco-German axis, whose primary purpose will be to
oppose liberal reforms. This, indeed, is already the situation reported from
Brussels: the present European Commission is probably the most liberal ever,
but its liberal ambitions, whether in trade policy, competition or
deregulation, are frequently blocked by the veto-wielding combination of
Germany and France.

But does the impending paralysis over reform in Europe really matter? This
depends on one's point of view. For Europeans who are elderly or who own
their secure unionised jobs, especially in the public sector, the lack of
economic dynamism is unimportant, compared to the generosity of pensions and
protection of employment rights. High unemployment, which mainly afflicts
the young and non-unionised, is a small price to pay for such security.

For Euro-idealists who hoped to see the EU moving towards federation and
establishing itself alongside America and China, as one of the three global
powers of the 21st century, the failure of European economic initiative may
seem a disaster, but for ordinary citizens why should this matter?

Superficially, therefore, Eurosceptics should welcome the inability of the
European model to reform itself. It was always a delusion that the
treaties of Rome and Maastricht had created a new system of socioeconomics
that applied only to Europe and that could insulate its citizens from the
realities of competition in the modern globalised world. In this sense, we
must indeed welcome the recognition that national governments and voters,
rather than bureaucrats in Brussels and Frankfurt, will determine their own
national destinies by deciding on the necessary political trade-offs ‹
between security and dynamism, between equality and incentives, between low
taxes and generous public spending, and so on.

The tragedy, however, is that something precious will be lost if the people
of Germany, France and Italy choose the path of a slow, comfortable national
decline, rather than revitalisation. What will be lost, of course, is the
global dominance of the European civilisation that these three great nations
largely created.

As a democrat one has to acknowledge that the ageing electorates of Germany,
France and Italy are entitled to vote for political paralysis, economic
decline and global irrelevance. But the inevitable eclipse of European
civilisation by a brash, materialistic American or Chinese culture will be a
tragedy of epic proportions.

SGK · 14-10-2005, 08:14 AM

Utter, utter rubbish. Who is this wannabe intellectual?

mkpdavies · 14-10-2005, 08:29 AM

Oh I don't know. While this guy makes some heft assumptions, I think the underlying point that there is one part of the EU that want's it to be an old boys protectionist club and the other wants more of a free trade alliance is true. Also correct, is this conflict of interest will make it very difficult for any real reform to take place.

Throw INTO phpbb_the mix all the corruption, deceit and ego's and it's the perfect recipe for disaster.

Roger Gough · 14-10-2005, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White knight

AFTER THIS WEEK'S creation of a German government in which Angela Merkel
will not even control the Finance and Foreign ministries, all three of the
great European nations that have dominated the Continent's history for 2,000
years Germany, France and Italy are effectively leaderless.

Then they should all get together and have one leader - like an overall President with one Parliament. It'd save on wages.

SGK · 14-10-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Oh I don't know. While this guy makes some heft assumptions, I think the underlying point that there is one part of the EU that want's it to be an old boys protectionist club and the other wants more of a free trade alliance is true. Also correct, is this conflict of interest will make it very difficult for any real reform to take place.

You only got that from this piece because you already think it / know it. He's going on about people voting for paralysis and an end to reform. That is not at all what happened here. He's looked at someone lying in hospital, heard a bit of gossip, and made up an account of how the accident happened.

mkpdavies · 14-10-2005, 01:41 PM

Quote:

You only got that from this piece because you already think it / know it. He's going on about people voting for paralysis and an end to reform. That is not at all what happened here. He's looked at someone lying in hospital, heard a bit of gossip, and made up an account of how the accident happened

Yeah, you are right about that. People come up with some crazy BS sometimes.

13-10-2005, 11:35 PM	#1 (permalink)
White knight Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Bristol Posts: 623	The people of Europe have voted for paralysis * All in SW The usual perspective from Kaletsky, who coveniently ignores the inherent bedrock of democracy that it is the people who should decide. They express their hopes, wishes, ambitions etc in the form of govt they elect, and they should be free to do so, even if that takes them to hell in a handcart. Anyone outside that microcosm who thinks there's a better 'ole, should keep his opinions to himself and let them discover reality for themselves rather than have it imposed on them by a dirigiste agency. Freedom means........being free, but that's not good enough for some people or agencies ,who think they have a better way. John Kelly The Times, London October 13, 2005 The people of Europe have voted for paralysis *and perhaps obliteration Anatole Kaletsky AFTER THIS WEEK'S creation of a German government in which Angela Merkel will not even control the Finance and Foreign ministries, all three of the great European nations that have dominated the Continent's history for 2,000 years Germany, France and Italy are effectively leaderless. They will almost certainly remain politically paralysed at least until the French presidential election of 2007. The power vacuum now covering the whole of continental Europe is almost unprecedented, at least since the disastrous period between the two world wars. But is the inability of German, French and Italian voters to choose effective political leaders and then to decide on clear programmes of social and economic reform or more precisely the unwillingness to do so a cause for worry? Or should we instead regard it as a natural product of the prosperous and comfortable societies that Europeans have created and simply want to preserve? Before I try to answer these questions, let me consider the main premise: that the German elections, along with the French referendum before the summer, really do represent an important punctuation mark in the history of Europe: the point when the ambitious market-oriented economic reform programme that started in the 1950s but really accelerated in the 1990s was brought to a full stop. This is the clear message from the composition of the new Government with all the key reform ministries, including Finance, Labour, Health, Environment, Transport and Social Services, ceded to the Social Democrats, who only last month were denouncing the modern market economy as a biblical plague of locusts, laying waste to Germany's traditional welfare state. Indeed the main theme of the German election, as of the French referendum campaign before it, was public rejection of an economic reform agenda that was demanded by the business and political elites. The market reforms that would supposedly make Europe the most competitive economy in the world had been unanimously endorsed by Europe's political leaders in their now-notorious Lisbon Declaration. But while the business and political elites across Europe became more and more obsessed with Lisbon's promises of open markets, competition and globalisation, voters couldn¹t help noticing that all these reforms, instead of improving their living standards or working conditions, were making them poorer and more insecure. In this sense the German election, as much as the French referendum, was a grand gesture of defiance by voters against their political elites, a message perceptively summarised by Wolfgang Münchau, a German commentator in the Financial Times: The German electorate has launched a new era in European economic policy the post-reform era. After ten years of economic reforms, the Germans decided they had had enough. To judge by opinion polls, the French electorate is sending a similar message, with the conciliatory immobilisme of Dominique de Villepin steadily gaining ground against the radical promises of a dynamic government from Nicolas Sarkozy. A similar pattern seems to be developing in Italy, where the Berlusconi Government has long since abandoned all significant economic reform plans and now looks like being replaced by a Centre Left even more committed to preserving the status quo. The reasons - - - come down to the simple point made by Münchau: reforms have been tried for a decade and they have failed to produce the promised increase in living standards or economic growth. Reforms have not delivered results because central banks have refused to support them with stimulative monetary policies and also because politicians have implemented them in the wrong order, starting with unpopular deflationary measures such as pension cuts, while delaying market liberalisation and financial deregulation that would have boosted wealth and created jobs. But all this is water under the bridge; the question now is whether the end of reforms should be seen as a disaster, an opportunity or a non-event. At the European level, the unity of the German and French electorates in rejecting liberal reforms ends Tony Blair¹s hopes of leading a pro-market consensus in Europe. On the contrary, the new coalition Government in Germany will find common cause with an ultra-cautious Chirac Government to re-create a powerful Franco-German axis, whose primary purpose will be to oppose liberal reforms. This, indeed, is already the situation reported from Brussels: the present European Commission is probably the most liberal ever, but its liberal ambitions, whether in trade policy, competition or deregulation, are frequently blocked by the veto-wielding combination of Germany and France. But does the impending paralysis over reform in Europe really matter? This depends on one's point of view. For Europeans who are elderly or who own their secure unionised jobs, especially in the public sector, the lack of economic dynamism is unimportant, compared to the generosity of pensions and protection of employment rights. High unemployment, which mainly afflicts the young and non-unionised, is a small price to pay for such security. For Euro-idealists who hoped to see the EU moving towards federation and establishing itself alongside America and China, as one of the three global powers of the 21st century, the failure of European economic initiative may seem a disaster, but for ordinary citizens why should this matter? Superficially, therefore, Eurosceptics should welcome the inability of the European model to reform itself. It was always a delusion that the treaties of Rome and Maastricht had created a new system of socioeconomics that applied only to Europe and that could insulate its citizens from the realities of competition in the modern globalised world. In this sense, we must indeed welcome the recognition that national governments and voters, rather than bureaucrats in Brussels and Frankfurt, will determine their own national destinies by deciding on the necessary political trade-offs ‹ between security and dynamism, between equality and incentives, between low taxes and generous public spending, and so on. The tragedy, however, is that something precious will be lost if the people of Germany, France and Italy choose the path of a slow, comfortable national decline, rather than revitalisation. What will be lost, of course, is the global dominance of the European civilisation that these three great nations largely created. As a democrat one has to acknowledge that the ageing electorates of Germany, France and Italy are entitled to vote for political paralysis, economic decline and global irrelevance. But the inevitable eclipse of European civilisation by a brash, materialistic American or Chinese culture will be a tragedy of epic proportions.

14-10-2005, 08:29 AM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	Oh I don't know. While this guy makes some heft assumptions, I think the underlying point that there is one part of the EU that want's it to be an old boys protectionist club and the other wants more of a free trade alliance is true. Also correct, is this conflict of interest will make it very difficult for any real reform to take place. Throw INTO phpbb_the mix all the corruption, deceit and ego's and it's the perfect recipe for disaster. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

14-10-2005, 08:14 AM	#2 (permalink)
SGK Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,237	Utter, utter rubbish. Who is this wannabe intellectual?