Posted on 05/27/2005 7:51:18 PM PDT by blam
Chirac ready to turn his anger on Blair if France votes Non
By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent
(Filed: 28/05/2005)
Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac will be pitched into a furious six-month dispute over the future direction of the European Union if the French people vote No to the EU constitution tomorrow.
Government sources are braced for the French president to round on the Prime Minister and blame him for making the constitution too "Anglo-Saxon" on economic issues and for plunging Europe into crisis as a result.
The French people go to the polls on Sunday
They also expect Mr Chirac to launch a fresh assault on Britain's £3 billion rebate from the EU budget.
British diplomats believe that Mr Chirac will call for France, Germany and other nations to form a "core Europe" in which they can push ahead with integration without being held back by laggards such as Britain.
However, Mr Blair and Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, want to use Britain's six-month EU presidency, which begins on July 1, to argue that eurozone economies need flexible British and American-style economies rather than heavy regulation and tax harmonisation.
Speaking in Rome yesterday after talks with Silvio Berlusconi, his Italian counterpart, before the G8 summit in July, Mr Blair described economic reform as "essential".
He said: "The big issue that faces our citizens now in Europe is how do we increase our prosperity in an era of globalisation, in an era of intense competition - not just within Europe but outside Europe."
Mr Blair is spending the bank holiday in a Tuscan villa with his wife, Cherie, and son, Leo, five. Downing Street would not confirm that the Blairs were staying as guests of Prince Girolomo Strozzi near Sienna.
Government officials say Mr Blair will give no quick response about the implication for a British referendum of a French No. Ministers are expected to hold emergency discussions with their EU counterparts and the European Commission before any decisions are taken.
A YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph today finds that 42 per cent of voters believe that, even if the French say No, a referendum should go ahead here because relations with the EU are so important.
The US is more like 30%. The factbook excludes US state revenues.
Or worse yet, he could kiss you.
Good call. There are additional taxes in many EU countries outside of federal taxes. For example, I met a man from Ireland who calculated that he paid 55% of his earnings in taxes. The ratio in Ireland is 49.5%. This takes into account corporate taxes as well, so the federal tax rate will be lower for an individual (probably around 35%). The rest of his taxes were for political subdivisions. I currently pay about 20% of my earnings to federal taxes with and additional 10% (roughly) to state and county. This leaves me with 70% of my earnings (which is lower than many because I have no deductions) compared to the man from Ireland who keeps 45%. Pretty disturbing if you ask me.
Which part of that sentence are you referring to?
They should face facts and just name it old Europe.
In other words, he'll surrender.
BTW, I loved Book V. Great job Jeff.
Regards,
L
All of it; what the Brits allegedly predict, and the idea of forming a core Europe. Such a still-born posited core would be France and Germany alone, along maybe with the nuerotic Belgium, the land of the one of the most unhappy folks on Earth. Who else in Europe would not to march to that drummer, particularly given how disgustingly self centered the French are. Rules are for other folks, which is the French violate EU budget rules without breaking wind.
not to march = want to march
I'm sure that the 'core Europe' they would try to form would be: France, Germany, Benelux, and Italy (the 6 founding members) plus I think Spain and Portugal. I agree it'd be stillborn without all of them, and I don't think they'll be able to work something like that out unless the EU falls apart.
As I'm sure you know, a number of the European states are at a crossroads with regard to the transnational experiment, and it's not very clear how they're gonna play out. The expansion was a disaster IMHO, because it was governed by political rather than economic rationales. They will now pay the price..
BTW, check out this thread and these posts...that announcement by China and India occurred on the exact date set in the books.
China and India form partnership
Check post 79 and post 80...freaky.
Best Fregards.
France doesn't like the EU Constitution because it isn't socialist enough, lol. And if even a socialist welfare state like Britain thinks it's too socialist, just imagine how bad it must be. Whew....
Old Europe is such an irrelevant and useless toilet.....
Well The Netherlands is headed to a big fat no vote, and I think Italy is tired of France. This idea is so yesterday. There is a duty free zone, and it will remain. That was what the core was about. It had no other useful purpose.
I don't disagree with you at all; I was just specifying what would be envisioned as the so-called "core Europe".. The main impediment here is that this nebulous "core Europe" project has not stated purpose, and that's of course what your pointing out as well. They keep talking about this "core Europe" that will "forge ahead" or whatever. Forge ahead to what?? Such platitudes are all fine and good but the devil will be in the practical details. If all they want is to issue a mission statement, then they will have no problem. If what they intend to do is develop a supranational institution then that requires a detailed compact. A compact to do what? Aha! That's the part they've left out.....
As for the Netherlands, their problem is Muslim immigration. It's worth noting that their referendum is merely advisory (non-binding) and could easily be ignored if France voted Oui. The only reason the Netherlands is an issue is because France is going to vote down the constitution. If France ratified, then the Dutch No would merely result in the collapse of the government, and then the new government would either resubmit to a new referendum (which is actually quite a novelty for the Dutch - this is their first referendum ever) or they would more likely use their election that put them into power to legitimate ratification by parliamentary vote.
Please ignore my vexing grammar seizure! =)
The radiant glow of your intellect typically blinds one to the slight imperfections in the otherwise dazzling canvas. Cheers.
Let me put these numbers in a different light, so that our picture is more realistic.
French government operations cost 54.2% of the GDP of France in 2003, which means that 45.8% of the GDP is left in private hands.
Recall that in France there is only one level of government to speak of. The national government is centralized. There is one megalopolis and a couple of smallish cities.
US government, at federal, state and local levels consumed 30.6% of GDP every year. Which means that 69.7% of the GDP was left in private hands.
However, this number is deceptive.
Remember that in France, there is universal health insurance, and universal free public education from age 2 (child care) through university.
In the US, 15.3% of GDP is spent on health care, but only 4.6% of that comes from the government. Which means that 10.7% of the GDP in the US that is part of the "private" economy is actually consumed on health care. In both France and the United States, health care expenditures end up in the hands of doctors, who are private in both places (France's national health insurance is not like Canada's, but is really US Medicare from birth to death. US Medicare is free choice of doctors, with the government paying the rates.)
So, that 10.7% of the US private economy spent in health care costs has to be added into the government figure, because the recipients of that money are the same in either place (and doctors are well off elites in both places). This is a mandatory expenditure, and it is consumption, not savings. I will return to this point in a moment.
In France day care and pre-school are provided for in that 54.2%. It is universal, and part of the public education system. In the US, the same need is paid for out of the private economy, it is not universally available, and it consumes 3% of GDP.
In France, education for everyone, from pre-school through university, is funded as part of that 54.2% of GDP.
In the US, 10% of GDP is spent on education, but only 5% of that comes from the government at all levels. 5% comes out of the private economy. All Americans with children know the burden of saving for college.
So, let us add together those pieces of the American "private" economy that are consumed on necessary services: 10.7% for health care, 3% for child care, 5% for education. That adds up to 18.7% of GDP expended by Americans out of their private dollars for these service, which are of the same genre as is spent out of the public coffers in France. Please note that in both France and the US, all of these expenditures end up in private hands: doctors, teachers, and child care workers. The only difference is in who writes the check.
Add that 18.7% of the GDP for these services to the US governmental outlays of 30.9% of GDP, and you get a realistic comparison of the cost of government plus social services in France and America.
In France, it is 54.2% of GDP.
In America, it works out to 49.3% of GDP.
So, France is really spending 4.9% more of its GDP on government and social services than the United States is, when you get right down to it.
Now please remember that there are 44 million Americans without health insurance, and 0 French people without comprehensive health care coverage. And please remember that the 4.9% difference in France provides universal day care coverage and universal free educations through college.
The French are indeed spending more than the Americans for the social cohesion that France particularly values. But when you compare the 30.9% US government expenditures to the 54.2% French government expenditures, France looks bloated and ridiculous. However, you must remember that what the French are GETTING out of that 23.3% difference in their GDP expenditure is universal health insurance, universal child care and univeral free education. The Americans don't have universal any of those things, but they still spend 18.7% of their GDP right out of their own pockets to get some of the same services. The money ends up in the private pockets of the service providers in both places.
So, the French government "premium" for its socialism is really 4.9% of GDP, not 20%, and for that 4.9% of GDP the French get universal coverage, and there are no French people with the anxiety of losing their health care, or wondering how they are going to pay for a nanny or save for their child's college.
One can still prefer the American system if one chooses, but the simplistic mashing of numbers comparing government to government expenditures paints a very false impression. The realistic comparison of services to services paints a very different picture.
The French pay 4.9% more of their GDP to have universal security. That Americans spend 4.9% less, and have universal anxiety. It is a judgment call. Simply put, France will never choose the American model. The difference in cost is marginal, but the difference in stress level is enormous.
Nothing in life is free. It is about whether the public sector or public sector provides it, and the costs and benefits to the provision by each. The US provides the finest health care, and it is the most expensive (with inefficiencies and efficiencies in doing it that way, and a whole lot more choice). Shocking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.