Comments on: Naive musings

By: Guy

Guy — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:51:52 +0000

“At a meeting with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, a fortnight ago, President George Bush softened his stance from previous demands for Hamas to be dismantled. He described Hamas as a terrorist organisation but said he welcomed its participation in the elections. ”

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1501559,00.html

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:27:54 +0000

Negotiating with terrorists should be considered corruption. Brussels is currently negotiating with Hamas. This is the group that appears to be in power now in Palestine. They are best known for their high power explosives that are used for terror acts both in Lebanon and Israel.

Perhaps Brussels is looking at alternative methods to fix Europe’s non-existant defenses. Alternatively, Brussels may be considering going into the terrorist business themselves. Who would they blow up first? Chirac?

By: Oliver

Oliver — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:03:50 +0000

The giant sucking sound coming from Brussels is the vacuum of money disappearing at huge rates through micro management and corruption.

But then you don’t aim at execution but you are saying that the EU budget policy has been stupid and harmful for decades. That’s another ball game.

By: JLS

JLS — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:01:29 +0000

1- Corruption is not really the problem is Europe.
2 - The budget of Europe is ridiculous maybe 1% og PIB.
The problem is what we are doing of this money.
It would be better to spend this money in Research than Agriculture.

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:26:29 +0000

This morning’s Wall Street Journal suggests that the reverse is true. The giant sucking sound coming from Brussels is the vacuum of money disappearing at huge rates through micro management and corruption.

The elephant in this room would say “this is definitely not peanuts”.

By: Guy

Guy — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:18:32 +0000

Oliver, you are right, the 3.15 billion are peanuts. But those were never repaid. And that still leaves us with the one billion each year in my first example.

“The question of fairness however is meaningless without a prior answer to the question of purpose.”

Evidently. That is where transparency comes in, to determine what the funds are used for right now. And the question of purpose ties in with a consensus on what Europe is supposed to mean.

In fact, I do agree with the gist of your post, yet I have no definitive answers. Right now we are in limbo, hence my confusion and naivety.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:28:17 +0000

this subsidy fraud has cost EU taxpayers at least $3.15 billion between 1971 and 2002

Bluntly put: peanuts

like combatting fraud and corruption and making the EU budget more transparent

I am sorry, this is trying to dodge the issues. You can execute a policy as well as you might, but that doesn’t tell you whether the policy is sensible in the first place. We now have to answer what the budget is for.

be about fairness, who needs what, and not about defending acquired rights. For instance, let the UK demonstrate why it still needs the rebate and let France demonstrate why it still needs such a big share of the agricultural subsidies.

The idea that the UK or France strictly speaking need any subsidies from Brussels is ridiculous. Western Europe holds highly developed rich countries, albeit in crisis.
If you want an EU budget built on the basis of need, you’ll end up with a tiny budget paying for the staff and some regional funds for eastern europe. You’d cut the budget by 80% or so.
The question of fairness however is meaningless without a prior answer to the question of purpose.

By: Peter J.

Peter J. — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:37:53 +0000

Solidarity comes second to national interests in the EU as the French so brilliantly illustrate. Every member state engages in this to a greater or lesser degree.

There has always been a conflict between the interests of member states and the European “community” interest. I see no prospect of this situation changing until there is agreement on what exactly the “European Project” really is. The latter expression is used extensively by the media, political leaders, and members of the European Commission but its definition remains nebulous.