The European Dream

[syracusa]

Originally posted by castille,
while Americans have always pushed for achievement.

Achieve what? A life of misery working in a cubicle year-round?
Let's not foreget that most people in the US do not do jobs that they are crazy about. They don't do crap that they would want to do anyway, even if money was not an issue.You can say that many have gotten used to this type of unfulfilling, hollow lifestyle, working at some crappy job all the time, so they can make more money and spend it at the Mall. Or at the car-dealership. Or etc.
Ad when I mean crapy job, i don't just mean the menial, poorly paid ones. there are lots of jobs out there that are very well paid and are crappy as hell.
Americans are enamoured with money for money's sake and they would sell their eternal souls for it, not just their present lives (which obviously they are willing to do).

If you think this is a life of "achievement" you are sick.

I prefer the European "decadence". To have a life beyond work, to be part of a community, to get a chance to spend some time there as well... is not decadence, is normality. It is part of being a human and having a fulfilling life. It is what keeps people from becoming the kind of sicko sociopathic wacos than only in the US you can find.

[Samildanach]

I live in Britain and travel into other countries in Europe infrequently. I was also recently in the states for work reasons and I will tell you that Europe in terms of quality of life etc beats America hands down.
Sure Europe is poorer in a lot of ways however because of that they are also richer in a lot of ways as well. There whole society and social structure doesn't revolve around money. It revolves around quality of life and fun and friends.
Im not anti-american, I've been to America a couple of times and the people are nice enough but having seen both places I would not choose to live there.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Nono,
We're talking Germany, of course, and I think it's insane.

Which is your opinion. I was just pointing out you said there weren't any limits, and there are. I guess I'm as crazy as the Germans. Oh well I guess.

[Lava]

Originally posted by Nono,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nono,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Lava
I wonder if the writer&#39;s case would be at all convincing if the various errors in it were snipped out or corrected.

Yeah, the Brits are stalwart Euro-skeptics.

So rather than simply making the sweeping statement that Rifkin is full of crap, how about enumerating and correcting those errors?[/b][/quote]

I know, I was too tired. and am again.... but hope to do that soon.

Lava

[Lava]

Originally posted by Samildanach,
I live in Britain and travel into other countries in Europe infrequently. I was also recently in the states for work reasons and I will tell you that Europe in terms of quality of life etc beats America hands down.
Sure Europe is poorer in a lot of ways however because of that they are also richer in a lot of ways as well. There whole society and social structure doesn&#39;t revolve around money. It revolves around quality of life and fun and friends.
Im not anti-american, I&#39;ve been to America a couple of times and the people are nice enough but having seen both places I would not choose to live there.

I so much agree.

Lava, Britain.

[Lava]

Well, I said I&#39;d do it...


QUOTE Jeremy Rifkin:

> There is a myth, unfortunately accepted by many Europeans, that the US is a dynamic economic colossus, whereas Europe is a sclerotic mess on the skids.

No-one even could believe that, as Europe contains a very wide variety of economies, encompassing everything from communist dictatorship to outright capitalism. It is anything but one economy, in any respect at all.

I&#39;ve also yet to meet anyone that thinks our economy here is &#39;a sclerotic mess on skids&#39; whatever that might mean.


> But in Europe an extraordinary experiment is underway: 455 million people in 25 countries ranging from the Irish Sea to the Russian border building an economic and political union. Throughout history all other such constructs ? including the US itself ? were founded on a basis of exploitation and violence. After a thousand years of conflict culminating in two world wars, however, the Europeans stood back and said ?Things can?t go on this way ? we have to find a way to work together.?

Actually I think the work together bit came decades later. After the war IIUC there was strong feeling against international trade. Buy japanese here then and you were asking for violence. The feeling after the war was very much that we needed to rebuild our economy, and not anyone elses.


> This is something completely new, and we don?t even know exactly what it is. The EU isn?t a nation state, it?s more of a network intended to bring the international into harmony with the local.

Its basically trade treaties. The reason for the much disliked partial harmonisation is simply to ease cross border trade, so that one can export the same product to differing places. The wide variety of laws has made this a difficult process. A classic example of this difficulty occurred in France when a drug manufacturer had to withdraw its supplies of a drug to France: the French authorities were going to prosecute them for failing to give the legally required 1 months notice before withdrawing supply of a pharmaceutical. The possibility of such a law had never even occurred to the company. The plurality of differing cultures, laws, traditions and issues has traditionally made european trade fairly problematic.

Partial harmonisation is intended to make international trade more successful. However it is quite an issueful process, and one the British people do not support.


> Americans think they live in the world?s greatest country. Any mistakes belong to the past ? they?re optimistic. But Europeans suffer from an inferiority complex. They only ever talk about Europe?s failures.

Here in Britain we talk about Europes failures because

a) it is riddled with them, and Britain does not support the increasingly large compromises for questionable gain that our leading party is committed to pushing through regardless.

b) all the evidence shows we can do much better without this euro interference.
We do not feel inferior about it, quite the reverse. We do not want our good setup screwed over for very little. Our laws are significantly different to most other Euro coutries, and we would like to keep it that way with good reason. We also do not like the idea of handing over governmental power to groups outside of the UK, especially groups with a fairly mucky history. Sadly our governing political party is committed to doing so.


> The reality, however, is that the EU ? not the US ? is today the world?s biggest export market and has the largest home market.

It isnt a market though, it is a multitude of markets. It isnt only the differences in law and culture, but also basic needs that separate these markets. For example you can not sell the same windows to wet cold Britain and dry hot Spain, no matter how hard you try. There are many such differences for reasons practical, social, legal and political.


> Over 20% more of the world?s top companies are European than American. Fourteen of the 20 leading banks are European. Europe leads in a whole range of major industries, from civil aviation to construction to food.

> Today companies in Germany (the most powerful economy force in the EU) view themselves as European, not simply German ? just as companies in California (the most powerful economy in the US) view themselves as American, not just Californian. The Germans are now subject to pan-European regulations, just as the Californians are to American ones.

As long as you dont imagine all europe is like that. Europe is in no way a single culture, legal system, economic system or market. The fundaments are not the same. All in europe are by definition european, but for the UK we are very much British, europe is down the line somewhere.


> Some Europeans say ?Wait a minute ? Europe is sclerotic,

He uses this term, literally meaning &#39;thick skin,&#39; but fails to tell us what he actually means by it. Result is its meaningless.


> suffers high unemployment,

we dont at all


> etc. We should look to the US to see how to generate economic growth.

Europeans do not say that - at laest none I&#39;ve ever met. Why? US and EU economies are fundamentally different. Applying US models here would be bound to fail.

Firstly US it resource rich, EU is not. As an example, domestic electricity was hampered here for years by the unaffordability of copper wire. It was just too expensive. Even as late as the 50s aluminium house wiring was used to try to reduce costs, despite the known issues with Al wiring. Today, grid power transmission is generally done by aluminium or mixed al/cu cables.

US and UK economies have achieved wealth through 2 different ways. The US has used resources to do it, with almost no concern for efficiency. UK has done the oposite, it has concentrated on employing efficiency to extract the most return out of our relatively small resources.

An everyday example of this is washing machines. The US uses top loaders that fill with water. Large volumes of water and electricity are needed to heat al that water. UK quit using those machines decades ago, over 99% of our washers are front loaders that _do not_ fill with water, but merely dip the outer edge of the clothes in a minimal amount of water once each rotation. Water use is less than 1/20th, electricity use is less than 1/10th.

This is only one of many examples. Mandated efficiency levels exist across the board, for nearly all appliances. There are numerous legal minimums, but a lot of consumers will also insist on only buying highly efficient appliances. As another example, the kind of mpg typical of American cars borders on socially unacceptable here. Few people would even consider buying such guzzlers. Our economy achieves results through efficient use of limited resources, US&#39;s achieves results through inefficient use of plentiful resources.

Also the political model is different. UK is more interested in worker welfare than free trade. Numerous laws and regulations determine what you can and cant do with employees. One thing you cant do is just fire them&#33; To fire an employee you have to have a reason that fits with a small number of legally approved reasons - otherwise the employee takes you to tribunal and you lose. America runs on a workforce desperate to please, we run on a workforce that mostly couldnt give a shit and is in no hurry thanks, and cant be sacked for it. So again, what works is going to be different.


> The US has carried out radical reforms and largely dismantled the welfare state, lowered taxes and spurred capital flows, and in so doing has created a lean, competitive economy.

It is not lean, it is grossly inefficient. If US adopted the kind of efficiency drive we have had here for decades, it might possibly be obscenely wealthy.


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Now he veers right off the tracks into personal views with nothing visible at all to support them:

> But Europe has a Golden Goose: integration. What it needs is to take full advantage of its size, with:
>· A single transport grid.

How is that going to give us anything?


>· A single energy-supply system.

What would that give us?


>· A single communication system.

We have several now: how is cutting that back to one possibly going to help? Surely just basic economics tells us it wont.


>· A single body of legislation regulating the economy and commerce.

God forbid&#33;&#33; That is the worst aspect of european integration, the laws. You cant sell these tomatoes. Why? Cos theyre TOO SMALL. The standing joke for years was that you could only sell bananas if they had the Europe-prescribed amount of bend: too straight or too curly and nope, they were unfit for sale.

England uses 2 weights and measures systems, and has done for a long long time. It uses imperial (pounds, inches) and metric (metres, kilos). Thanks to europe it is now ILLEGAL to sell goods in pounds and ounces. If you sell items on a BRITISH market stall to locals IN BRITAIN, it is illegal to use British units. Yes, businesses have been threatened and prosecuted. Yes, every retail outlet has had to buy a new set of scales. For what??

I&#39;d love to know in exactly what way this guy thinks such dumb and farcically out of touch policies are going to benefit us. Whoever came up with that one is a moron.


>· A single language ? English ? for the running of that economy.

Shouldnt we leave it upto the French to decide what they will do in France? Its their lives, or was last time I checked. I&#39;m thinking theyre quite able to decide for themselves. And guess what, not one single country has decided to agree with the author on this. None has changed its national language.


> If you can manage that, you?ll be much better prepared for success in the emerging, technology-driven, network economy

He doesnt give us any reason whatever to believe this claim. Why is it that no country is following his beliefs? Not one.


> and you?ll be able to consolidate your achievements in the realm of collective welfare.

How would collective welfare increase what achievement?
What if we dont want collective welfare? What if Germany wants to continue with its ultra high welfare payouts, and Spain with its opposite policy? Why would we all need to do the same thing with our welfare systems? What would be the advantage? No-one even wants to.


> And Europe should be careful not to sacrifice those achievements:
>· Education ? America may, currently, have the best universities in the world, but the European public school system is way ahead, with far better results in mathematics and science.
>· Health care ? You live a full year longer than we do on average. You have more doctors per head of population. You have a lower infant-mortality rate (the US has only the 27th best rate in the world owing to higher poverty)

But again this is not a Euro achievement, this is an achievemnt of _some_ euro countries. We differ widely. Some do better than US and some far worse.


>· Leisure ? We have two weeks of paid holiday per year, you have four, and more statutory holidays. So you have more time to enjoy life than we do.

well.. its an opinion. Fact is countries in EU differ in working hours, holidays etc. Spain has lunchtime siestas, we dont, etc etc.

>· Murders ? We have four times as many as you.
>· Prisoners ? Twenty-five per cent of the world?s prisoners are in the US.

Yes, you have a number of factors that all increase this problem. Some are down to social and political policies, some cultural, and some are inherent in the very nature of the US country.


> Yes, maybe we?re richer than you are ? for the moment. But you have a higher quality of life.

I sure agree there.


> My advice: Don?t throw it all away when, through integration, you can consolidate it.

He has not given us even a single reason to believe that integrating would &#39;consolidate&#39; or improve anything.


> The American Dream and the European Dream are fundamentally different. Freedom lies at the centre of both.

Excuse me, there IS no European dream. The &#39;American dream&#39; is a product of the American society. We dont have one, nor do we feel any need for one.


> But when an American says the word ?freedom?, he means something quite different from what a European means when he says the same word. The American (this is how his parents have raised him to think) means autonomy, mobility and self-reliance: not to be dependent on any broader community and not to feel responsible for it either. For Europeans (that?s how they?ve been raised to think) freedom means relations with and access to the wider community that give your life meaning.

I dont think so. I dont think most here even know what the word means. They waffle about &#39;wanting to be free&#39; but ask them exactly what they want in practical terms, and frankly theyve got no idea, it just sounded good.


What freedoms do we value most in UK?

Our civil liberties, which although much less in principle are greater in practice than in the US

Free speech - but no-one seems to value the extremity of freedom in that that the US has. Here if you give someone a book on how to make explosives you&#39;ll get arrested.

Welfare system - the safety net actually gives us a lot of freedom that you folks in the US lack, like freedom to walk away from abusive and dangerous situations, without having to worry about money.


> In Europe on the other hand, the ideal of the individual never really made it.

Indeed, Britain has never worked like that. There is not enough free land to be able to wander off alone and survive. American style solitude is simply not a realistic option here. A family cant be self sufficient on acre.


> Up to the 18th century society was close-knit: people lived in or around already crowded, walled cities, with a paternalistic Catholic church and a basically feudal-aristocratic system that tempered any idea of individualism. By the time the 20th century rolled around, the idea of income redistribution was already gaining ground, i.e. you might well find yourself alone in the marketplace, but any wealth gained there should also be used for the general good.

> The American Dream is to amass personal wealth. The Europeans tell us ?You?re only interested in money&#33;?.

No we dont. US is more focussed on it because it makes more difference there, but thats all. Here we have much higher levels of welfare and public services, so there is not the same kind of worry here.


> Traditonally any boy in America ? Ford, Rockefeller, Gates ? could become a millionaire. But in Europe, with its feudal history and class-ridden society, it was hard to rise. So people found an alternative: improving the quality of life in society as a whole.

This isnt really an equal comparison. We changed from a feudal society to a capitalist one at around the same time as America&#39;s founding fathers were busy. It was a gradual process that spanned the 1700s and 1800s, but come Victorian times Britain was very much capitalist. So we were a little slower, but both have similarish periods of capitalism behind us.

Many people made their fortunes _through_ improving the lot of the people. They invented equipment, they industrialised manufacturing etc, all providing people with what they wanted, improving the buyer&#39;s life, and thus collecting the buyers&#39; money. The modern US concept of capitalism was very much alive during Victorian times, much more so than today. That is partly why Britain has been much more interested in improving society, because its what works for the individual.


> America is growth-crazy. No problem: pollute and move on. But Europe is much more into sustainable development, because its geographic limits were reached long ago.

exactly - here anyway. Some EU countries are much less densely populated than UK.


> Even before the 18th century, Europe was broken down into tiny goegraphical units, with town and land closely linked. People were obliged to learn the value of conservation. Planning came naturally.

yes, we worked together because it was the only workable option.


> To conclude, the American Dream says that the individual can successfully shape his own life. The European Dream is collectivist and based on an ideal of the general quality of that life:
> · There should be no great gap between rich and poor.

It is hard to see that being true. We have welfare claimants, we have the royal family. Quite a gap. It is at least true to say welfare is regarded as an important thing here in UK, as a fundamental part of our social philosophy. But the same can not be said of all Europe, not by any means.


>· Cultural diversity (in this vast potpourri of cultures) should be respected; each has a contribution to make.

Not sure what to make of that. Britain is a moggy nation, the opposite of a single race. Most of us are from widely mixed racial stock due to the massive influx from numerous countries over at least the last 2 millennia. I think thats what makes us more accepting as a nation, not any philosophical ideal really.


>· Sustainable development and respect for our fellow creatures.

practical necessity. You dont develop unsustainably when land costs 50,000 an acre, and in some places much more. You dont ignore your fellows when 200 people live on 400 yds of street.


>· Quality of life for the entire community.
>· Social and human rights.

There were big movements in these areas in Britain in the 1920s 30s and 40s, due to the kind of suffering that used to go on. You cant ignore it when you live among it every day. The sad plight of &#39;heroes&#39; returning from the war only to face destitution was also a big motivator, especially for the NHS, our socialist health service.


>· World peace.

> That is the European Dream.

If there is any such a thing as a european dream, peace in europe would be the one and only part of it. Europe was a war zone in the last century, 25% of Britons wiped out by Hitler, 10s of milions died in many countries. Before that there were Britain&#39;s wars with Africa, and for 2000 years before that Britain was an often war torn country. Peace is the one thing we in Europe can put our finger on and say yes, we want that.

But, that is it. Apart from that there is no europe wide dream. We dont have one, nor do we feel any need for one :)


> And you didn?t even know you had one; you thought only the Americans had a dream.

> This is a dream, of course, a hope for the future, and like the American one it will never be fully realized. Big deal. The European Dream is the world?s first global, transnational dream.

> Just consider things like the SARS epidemic, a Wall Street scandal, a worldwide computer virus, and you realize that no man is an island, that the dream of the totally self-reliant individual simply does not work any more. We?re interdependent now. The European Dream is the way forward, not the American Dream.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

He uses this to push his vision of european integration, but integration offers no benefits to the troubles of sars, wall street, viri, etc. It just isnt relevant to it. Had he offered some argument for the connection we could discuss it, but he hasnt even suggested one. Thats how weak his pro-euro argument is.


Well, hopefully lots to debate.


Lava

[Nono]

Well, Europe here means the EU -- he&#39;s talking about the European Union, not a purely geographic entity. So it&#39;s wrong to include Belarus or anything weird like that.

I&#39;ve often heard the term "sclerotic" used. Means "overly rigid".

We should look to the US to see how to generate economic growth.
Europeans do not say that - at laest none I&#39;ve ever met.

Jeez, we must be hearing different people. The best example is all this lean&#39;n&#39;mean stuff: a US import.

Your example of washing-machine efficiency is an excellent illustration of Rifkin&#39;s "pollute and move on" point.

What would a single transport, etc. grid give us? Standardization. Greater efficiency. (Does Britain have the same railway gauge everywhere? Why?)

That is the worst aspect of european integration, the laws. You cant sell these tomatoes. Why? Cos theyre TOO SMALL. The standing joke for years was that you could only sell bananas if they had the Europe-prescribed amount of bend: too straight or too curly and nope, they were unfit for sale.

Strawman. Absurd examples can be found everywhere. Nothing wrong with federal law in a federal system.

If you sell items on a BRITISH market stall to locals IN BRITAIN, it is illegal to use British units. Yes, businesses have been threatened and prosecuted. Yes, every retail outlet has had to buy a new set of scales. For what??

The dreaded midnight knock of Her Majesty&#39;s Metric Police&#33;
People hate change. You need to have incentives (negative or positive) to overcome this.

Shouldnt we leave it upto the French to decide what they will do in France? Its their lives, or was last time I checked. I&#39;m thinking theyre quite able to decide for themselves. And guess what, not one single country has decided to agree with the author on this. None has changed its national language.

See above. But if you want an integrated economy, something&#39;s gotta give. They didn&#39;t like adopting English for international aviation, either. But the logic was overwhelming.

You keep citing the fact that no one country has done what he&#39;s recommending for the future. :confused:

We differ widely.

So do Vermont and Alabama. Newfoundland and Alberta. So what?

There IS no European dream.

You&#39;re hunkered down in UKist Thatcherdom. You can&#39;t perceive it.

integration offers no benefits to the troubles of sars, wall street, viri, etc.

I think his point is that integration is already here in a lot of ways. Best face the fact and start working together.

You know, Lava, I think you agree with Rifkin much more than you realize.

[Lava]

QUOTE Nono, Lava

> Well, Europe here means the EU -- he&#39;s talking about the European Union, not a purely geographic entity. So it&#39;s wrong to include Belarus or anything weird like that.

I dont know what point that makes, EU is still a wide variety of nations.


> I&#39;ve often heard the term "sclerotic" used. Means "overly rigid".

a meaninglessly vague phrase. One can only have a meaningful discussion if made up terms are defined. Maybe you can explain them for him.


> We should look to the US to see how to generate economic growth.

>> Europeans do not say that - at laest none I&#39;ve ever met.

> Jeez, we must be hearing different people. The best example is all this lean&#39;n&#39;mean stuff: a US import.

I have no idea what youre talking about, sorry :)


> Your example of washing-machine efficiency is an excellent illustration of Rifkin&#39;s "pollute and move on" point.

yes, he&#39;s quite right on that point.


> What would a single transport, etc. grid give us? Standardization. Greater efficiency. (Does Britain have the same railway gauge everywhere? Why?)

Maybe you&#39;d like to tell us how it would be more efficient, and exactly _what_ would be standardised to achieve this. I know youll come a cropper on this. :)


>> That is the worst aspect of european integration, the laws. You cant sell these tomatoes. Why? Cos theyre TOO SMALL. The standing joke for years was that you could only sell bananas if they had the Europe-prescribed amount of bend: too straight or too curly and nope, they were unfit for sale.

> Strawman. Absurd examples can be found everywhere.

Sure they can, but that doesnt address the point. The point is that EU laws are often absurd, and replace our well thought out laws, and that is wrong, stupid, and unhelpful.


> Nothing wrong with federal law in a federal system.

I think its fairly obvious there is in the case of the EU. Europe is not comparable to US, UK is a separate nation, not a state of europe. Our issues and bugs are not the same as any other EU nation, our laws are tailored to meet our needs rather than someone elses.

Personally I believe in countries being governed by the people, as it is the only and best way to ensure the government is answerable to the people. It is the very fundament of democracy. To hand over government to some body outside the UK with a history of idiocy and corruption, and no answerabilty to British people, is just plain daft.


> The dreaded midnight knock of Her Majesty&#39;s Metric Police&#33;
People hate change. You need to have incentives (negative or positive) to overcome this.

Not quite. Before overcoming resistance to change you have to have a reason to change. There isnt one. It is an exercise in wasting everyones time and money, criminalising harmless traders, and making our givernors look like complete morons. Just another example of the stupidity of this carry on.


>> Shouldnt we leave it upto the French to decide what they will do in France? Its their lives, or was last time I checked. I&#39;m thinking theyre quite able to decide for themselves. And guess what, not one single country has decided to agree with the author on this. None has changed its national language.

> See above. But if you want an integrated economy, something&#39;s gotta give.

Who said we wanted an integrated economy? Not me. We can trade internationally without an integrated economy, and then we can tailor our economy to maximise our growth, something that obviously can not happen if we adopt the euro.

Adopting the euro will save importers and exporters upto 1% in currency exchange costs. However it will also mean inappropriate interest rate decisions for our economy, resulting in poorer performance. Since the reduced growth rate compounds year on year, we will end up far worse off over several years than the small 1% saving a minority of us gain.


> They didn&#39;t like adopting English for international aviation, either. But the logic was overwhelming.

Indeed. Obviously that is a diferent situation with different issues and arguments, so not an argument for every country adopting english.


> You keep citing the fact that no one country has done what he&#39;s recommending for the future. :confused:

Yes, not one has agreed with him. He is not the first to suggest changing over to English, that ideas been around a long time. Not one country in Europe&#39;s done it.


>We differ widely.

>>So do Vermont and Alabama. Newfoundland and Alberta. So what?

So his talk of europe as being one market place is simply wrong.


> You&#39;re hunkered down in UKist Thatcherdom. You can&#39;t perceive it.

When someone starts coming out with psychobabble to explain why you disagree, you know theyve got no serious argments left.

Thatcher is long gone. A strange woman.


> I think his point is that integration is already here in a lot of ways.

It is, but that is not his point. His point was we should become as one.


> Best face the fact

whos not facing the fact we have some integration already? Need to get real with us.


> and start working together.

Give us a reason to.... yet to hear one that holds water. All I hear is vague waffle and points that just dont add up.


Lava

[Nono]

Originally posted by Lava+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lava)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I dont know what point that makes, EU is still a wide variety of nations.[/b]

Sorry, don&#39;t mean to quibble but you said that "Europe contains a very wide variety of economies, encompassing everything from communist dictatorship to outright capitalism". I don&#39;t know which EU country -- diverse though the EU is -- could be described as a communist disctatorship.

a meaninglessly vague phrase

And all this stuff about precise definitions of this or that word ... life is too short.

Maybe you&#39;d like to tell us how it would be more efficient, and exactly _what_ would be standardised to achieve this. I know youll come a cropper on this.

Hafta apply to Rifkin for that one. Dude was giving a one-hour interview. Why not read his book, which I plan to do one of these days.
That said, I come back to my point about railway gauges. There is a logic to standardization within a single economy. Or don&#39;t you agree?

The point is that EU laws are often absurd

OK, here&#39;s a taste of your own medicine: What on earth do you mean exactly by "often"? (Pain, ain&#39;t it?)

Personally I believe in countries being governed by the people, as it is the only and best way to ensure the government is answerable to the people.

So do I, actually. And I believe that small is beautiful. But precious few people seem to agree with me these days. Everybody&#39;s big into globalization. Also, with 1,000 years of history to suggest that Europeans -- when things are small -- aren&#39;t very good at staying out of each other&#39;s faces, seems to me that integration is worth a try.
&#39;Course you Brits -- like the Swiss -- find the idea hard to stomach. Well, you should leave the EU then, my view.

... it will also mean inappropriate interest rate decisions for our economy ...

Originally posted by Dennis Healy+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dennis Healy)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Controlling Interest rates is a terribly blunt instrument. (or words to that effect)[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Margaret Thatcher@
There&#39;s no such thing as a free lunch.(sound of handbag impact)[/quote]

<!--QuoteBegin-Lava
his talk of europe as being one market place is simply wrong[/quote]

If Vermont/Alabama and Newf/Alberta can swing it, so can Sweden and Portugal.

When someone starts coming out with psychobabble to explain why you disagree, you know theyve got no serious argments left.

Well, Lava, I can see it and you can&#39;t. There must be some explanation involving the subjective, psychobabble notwithstanding. Though I agree that Thatcher is a psychoanalytical goldmine.

Give us a reason to.... (integrate)

Save the European Dream (see Rifkin). Keep the civil war from restarting.

But no arms should be twisted. By all means get out of the EU if that&#39;s what you want.
I&#39;m a Swiss citizen, by the way, and I have my reservations about this country joining, though I consider it inevitable.

[Lava]

QUOTE Lava, Nono.

>> I dont know what point that makes, EU is still a wide variety of nations.

>Sorry, don&#39;t mean to quibble but you said that "Europe contains a very wide variety of economies, encompassing everything from communist dictatorship to outright capitalism". I don&#39;t know which EU country -- diverse though the EU is -- could be described as a communist disctatorship.

Yes, I accept your point there. But I think the point that europe is not a single market place would still stand.


re sclerotic... overly rigid...

>> a meaninglessly vague phrase

> And all this stuff about precise definitions of this or that word ... life is too short.

If you cant tell us what it means then it cant be used with any usefulness in a debate, since the debaters dont even know what it means. This is one of the popular errors, to use words and phrases without truly understanding them, but just _assuming_ theyre understood. Sclerotic or overly rigid could be interpreted in too many possible way to be of any use for sound communication imho.


re standardising railways...

>> Maybe you&#39;d like to tell us how it would be more efficient, and exactly _what_ would be standardised to achieve this. I know youll come a cropper on this.

> Hafta apply to Rifkin for that one. Dude was giving a one-hour interview. Why not read his book, which I plan to do one of these days.

Because his introductory piece is a dud. Because I got much better things to do.


> That said, I come back to my point about railway gauges. There is a logic to standardization within a single economy. Or don&#39;t you agree?

no, I dont. Lets look at it a little, then you can tell me your conclusion.


Railways
+--------+

When goods are made all to the same standard, the benefits lie in mass production economies and exportabilty. The downside is in the cost of features being supplied in every marketplace when some such features are of no use for some territories.

Railway coaches are hand built, the quantity is too low for mass conveyor belt style production, the cost of machinery required wuold be excessive, and the changes in design are frequent. Therefore there is no mass production gain from standardisation available. And the cost of unneeded features will be present in a EU-standardised railway coach.

Secondly one can not put the same coaches of _any_ standard on all the railway tracks across Europe. The systems are not nearly enough identical. To use a standardised unified system would require re-laying vast quantities of track - possibly entire countries - at vast re-laying expense, and vast disruption expense. All for no identified gain.

Thirdly local conditions differ. The netherlands is a flat country, yet Scotland is hilly, and the French/Spanish border mountainous. Ideal designs for the 2 are thus widely different. Producing a coach to run on both would be an inefficient design in _both_ locations. Similarly, no design can work efficiently on wonky 60mph max British track and 120mph TGV track, the requirements are too different, on that point alone.

Then there are differing laws...

Then there are varying safety expectations, and varying safety experiences due to differing issues. Britain for example runs mostly on Victorian track, now a century or more old, track that was crudely designed long before terms like jounce even existed, is badly undermaintained, is now wonky and wobbly, and in some areas loose. The trains have to cope with this. The French TGV system does not have this problem, it has modern, highly maintained, cutting edge design tracks. Our speed limits are determined primarily by track problems, with limits as low as 15mph on sections of loose track. The TGV is a very high speed service, over 100mph, with no such issues. Again the same design can not do both with any kind of efficiency.

Then there are financial differences. France and Switzerland spend a fortune on public railways, Britain runs one of the cheapest systems in the entire world. Britain has no interest whatever in paying for coaches or lines to Swiss or French standards.

Future railway technology is expected to be even more diverse, with mag lev now proven, and already in use in Japan.


Etc etc etc. Space left blank for your conclusions.

=========



>> The point is that EU laws are often absurd

> OK, here&#39;s a taste of your own medicine: What on earth do you mean exactly by "often"? (Pain, ain&#39;t it?)

See any dicionary. No its not a pain :) Dictionaries define all the words we use here bar one: sclerotic. The dictionary definition of sclerotic clearly is not relevant to how its being used here, which leaves us in the dark on that one, guessing vaguely.


>> Personally I believe in countries being governed by the people, as it is the only and best way to ensure the government is answerable to the people.

> So do I, actually. And I believe that small is beautiful. But precious few people seem to agree with me these days. Everybody&#39;s big into globalization.

Far from everybody. Our nation stands against it for a start.


> Also, with 1,000 years of history to suggest that Europeans -- when things are small -- aren&#39;t very good at staying out of each other&#39;s faces, seems to me that integration is worth a try.

If it prevented war it might be, but no means by which it would prevent war has been offered, once again it is a point that does not stand. And afaik the cause of WW1 and WW2 is no longer present, and serious deterrents that were not in place then now are.


>>... it will also mean inappropriate interest rate decisions for our economy


QUOTE (Dennis Healy)
>> Controlling Interest rates is a terribly blunt instrument. (or words to that effect)

quite right... but nonetheless it is an instrument that has a major effect on an economy. Thats one of the big failures of unification.


>> his talk of europe as being one market place is simply wrong

> If Vermont/Alabama and Newf/Alberta can swing it, so can Sweden and Portugal.

So can _any_ 2 countries. But the more different the countries involved are, the further from ideal the shared policies will be, and the more damage they will do. As a wildly extreme example just to ilustrate, imagine what would happen if US and Africa decided to share the same economic policy and laws. Damage or what&#33;


>> When someone starts coming out with psychobabble to explain why you disagree, you know theyve got no serious argments left.

> Well, Lava, I can see it and you can&#39;t.

IMHO you can see a vision that your arguments fail to properly support, a vision that appeals to you, but is supported on many wobbly cracked and bent columns / arguments. This is a common, if not universal, phenomenon. This explanation is based on logic, and is open to refute or reinforcement. It is not based on unsupportable pseudoscientific psychobabble.


> There must be some explanation involving the subjective, psychobabble notwithstanding. Though I agree that Thatcher is a psychoanalytical goldmine.

ha&#33; no kidding.


>> Give us a reason to.... (integrate)

> Save the European Dream (see Rifkin). Keep the civil war from restarting.

I think you illustrate the exlpanation I&#39;ve offered. You say save the eurodream, yet there is no convincing evidence that there is one. You say keep war from starting, yet there is no reason to believe war is about to start.

IMHO youre looking at the top layer, but have maybe not thoroughly examined all the layers below it, the things youre using to back up your main argument, to see what really holds up and what doesnt. A universal error I think.


> I&#39;m a Swiss citizen, by the way, and I have my reservations about this country joining, though I consider it inevitable.

I think thats what people feel here too. Makes me wonder why people elected them.


Lava

[The Fyrdman]

Europe does have a single, intergrated market. All members participate with each other without restriction, with the ability to work as easily in one state as the other. There are zones of control, where the individual states can manipulate their economies in their best interest, but that doesn&#39;t mean their is no single market.

Personally, I think we should keep the EU, but vastly reform it. Get rid of the commissioners, elevate the parliament to the legislating body, reduce the mandate of the legislating body only to issues that pertain to all member states, remove the regulation standardizing goods (i agree wih weights and measures being standardized, but market sellers should still be allowed to shout in imperial, prosecution for not is just stupid), end CAP, begin a European Rapid Reaction Force that is only permitted to deal with crises in Europe (i&#39;m thinking mainly of natural disasters, but we do need to be able step in quickly if another Yugoslavia happens) . There&#39;s no doubt more ideas I&#39;ll come up with, but thats the start.

The problem the Little Englanders have is that they are so blinded by fear that they can&#39;t see the neccesity of European integration. There are gaping flaws in the current system, and it needs to be reformed. However, we must stop thinking of our current situation and look to the future. China is about to take over the UK and become the 4th biggest economy in the world. The US is illegally and immorally throwing it&#39;s weight around, and we are getting dragged down by it. The UK and France are, largely, irrelevant on the international arena. The onyl way we can possibly stand up as an economy to Chinas burgeoning one, and to the military bullying of the US, is to integrate. It&#39;s a shitty cliche, but this really is an issue of together we stand, divided we fall.

[Lava]

Again a lot of apparently supoprting points, but ones with nothing to back them up, no substance, no argument.

Lava