Posted on 05/29/2005 1:12:07 PM PDT by Betaille
French voters have rejected the proposed EU constitution in Sunday's referendum, according to an exit poll. The poll quoted by French TV gives the "No" side 55% - in line with surveys published in the run-up to the vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
but can Chirac fillibuster?
"In fact the French are voting 'NON' for the most part because the EU will end govt subsidies."
???
Article 28
Right of collective bargaining and action
Workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have, in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action.
Article 29
Right of access to placement services
Everyone has the right of access to a free placement service.
Article 33
Family and professional life
1. The family shall enjoy legal, economic and social protection.
2. To reconcile family and professional life, everyone shall have the right to protection from dismissal for a reason connected with maternity and the right to paid maternity leave and to parental leave following the birth or adoption of a child.
Article 34
Social security and social assistance
1. The Union recognises and respects the entitlement to social security benefits and social services providing protection in cases such as maternity, illness, industrial accidents, dependency or old age, and in the case of loss of employment, in accordance with the rules laid down by Community law and national laws and practices.
2. Everyone residing and moving legally within the European Union is entitled to social security
benefits and social advantages in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices.
3. In order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the Union recognises and respects the right to
social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient
resources, in accordance with the rules laid down by Community law and national laws and practices.
Article 35
Health care
Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical
treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human
health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and
activities.
(do more studying)
Southern and Western Finland are set to suffer the most from planned cuts in European Union subsidies. If the EU cuts its supports as planned, funding earmarked for promoting employment, for education, helping small companies, environmental protection, and rural development will be most severely hit. Subsidies for Northern and Eastern Finland would also decline, but they would still benefit from the special area status accorded to sparsely-populated areas when Finland joined the EU in 1995. The information is contained in reports drafted in the government’s EU Secretariat and various government ministries after EU Presidency-holder Luxembourg presented its plans for the next EU budget in Brussels on Sunday.
The Ministry of Finance says that both the annual structural fund support and rural development funding that Finland gets from the EU would decline by about EUR 100 million. Currently Finland gets about EUR 320 million in structural fund subsidies and about EUR 350 million in rural development supports. The cutbacks would not affect traditional agricultural subsidies, which Finland gets to the tune of about EUR 650 million a year.
The reductions are related to last year’s enlargement of the EU. With ten new member states, there are considerably more countries sharing the subsidy package. Under the Luxembourg proposal, a greater proportion of the funding would go to regional and structural policy aimed at evening out discrepancies in development within the EU. The greatest beneficiaries of this are the new, poorer member states. "The bill for enlargement is now coming due. First to go will be the money for prosperous countries, which is naturally difficult to oppose", notes one Finnish official.
If agreement is reached on the EU budget, subsidies for Finland would decline in 2-4 years. However, the exact amounts may not be known until next year, because the distribution of EU funding is a topic of hot debate.
Helsingin Sanomat
Actually I read your post(s) and was apalled to see that you consider government contracts to Boeing the same as subsidies to Airbus.
No amount of studying on my part will fix that logic of yours.
The US would be thrilled if the French and/or Europe were to buy military hardware from Airbus to beef up their contribution to NATO.
“Anyone who dislikes U.S. hegemony should bear in mind that, instead of a multipolar world of competing great powers, a world with no hegemon at all may be the real alternative to it. This could turn out to mean a new Dark Age of waning empires and religious fanaticism; of endemic rapine in the world's no-go zones; of economic stagnation and a retreat by civilization into a few fortified enclaves. “
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/analysis/2004/0621endofpower.htm
Thank God the US 'rules' the world.
I am apalled at your ability to misread things. By the way I was talking about indirect subsidies that goes into some industries due to our military industrial complex. Be that as it may you again prove my point.
With all due respect, are you agreeing with the EU's ridiculous counterclaims, which it has already agreed to "compromise?"
The fact that the EU asserted an affirmative defense to US claims of unfair subsidy is not compelling of the truth of the matter.
Contracts are not subsidies. That's like saying an employee who earns a salary is subsidized by his job.
Who cares what the Euros think?
It is like saying electric cars don't pollute like gas powered engines - true enough but to make the car battery you create waste pollution in manufacturing and the power plant needs to burn more fuel to produce the electricity for the electric car.
So you see what I mean? It is a matter of perception.
That sounds like a stretch to me. If I buy a car am I subsidizing the car company the same way as if I just gave them money without taking delivery of a car from them?
"I guess you weren't around for the civil war. Oh well, that was American blood spilled on American soil, so we can ignore that as insignificant.
The carnage you talk about in Europe was of your own making, so why do demand instantaneous sympathy?"
I don't! Why should I demand sympathy? I just pointed out that Europeans have their very own traumas that influence their way of making decisions.
And no, I haven't forgotten the Civil war.
Civil War dead: approx. 560,000
World War II dead: more than 56,000,000
See the difference? That's only about 100 times as many.
Ok, I have to admit, it were only 20,000,000 in present day EU countries (if you also count the victims of the Spanish civil war).
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk/casualty.html
"The central bureaucracy has far too much power in comparison with the nations' governments, and in order to keep the currency somewhat stable and people from migrating rapidly from "bad" to "good" situations (however they would define that) that central government will use that power and rapidly force an equalization of such programs and tax policy."
That is indeed part of the problem, and yes, there are attempts at a "harmonization" of taxes and welfare systems within the EU. But I don't see how the proponents of this strategy (namely France, the German left etc.) can push this through. There's an almost equally strong trend towards more competition amongst the member states. Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, they wouldn't allow for a centralized taxation to happen. And yes, that is good!
"If there is to be a successful bringing together of Europe, I believe it has to be more like our Confederation of States - a very weak central government with very limited and defined powers and responsibility (centralized military? guidelines suggested for laws the nations adopt voluntarily? etc.) and most power remaining with the nations. That situation would have to exist for some time, and gradually be expanded as the countries grow more interdependent and similarly based."
That's more or less what I think. In a number of areas, the EU is definitely a good thing, i.e. common free market, defense cooperation (within NATO) and common protection of the EU borders (like the mediterranean sea) etc. .
"This EU concept tried to go too fast toward unification, I think, possibly because of the french Euroweenies pressure of trying to challenge the US."
In my humble opinion that view is much to simplistic. There are a number of other factors, that prove equally, if not more important.
1.) One was German reunification: The German public never wanted the introduction of the EURO, but that was the price for a French "yes" to a united Germany. Mitterand feared a larger Germany, so he basically wanted to embrace so tight, that Germany couldn't move without France allowing it to.
Thatcher didn't like the idea either, but Bush sr. was able to convince her. That's why most (western) Germans still speak extremely favorably of Bush sr.
2.) With all the new members like Poland or the Baltic, the window for "franco-german domination" (if there ever was such a thing) is closing fast, and Chirac sees it. So the French and the German left tried to hasten the European unification. Failure was certain and well deserved. Bye, bye, Gerhard, bye, bye Jacques!
So you see, it isn't always about the U.S., especially outside France this line of thinking plays only an unimportant role.
I disagree. Every time the Government does grant a contract, it is a subsidy. There is no market value, just how much work can be delivered..... The output is not sold
What would that be like? Like a perfectly sober drunk?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Since when is a purchase a subsidy?
As any Ponzi scheme can do if you are guaranteed 250 million suckers to work with.
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.