Thatcher winning EU battle?

Scuffer

Scuffer says...
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
2,655
Location
First in the active user list!
Back in the day, Thatcher raged against a federal Europe, responding No, No, No to proposals from Jacques Delors. Is the EU coming round to Thatchers way of thinking?
Whisper it quietly in case she starts waving her handbag in horror: Margaret Thatcher is winning in Europe. More than a decade after her fall from power in Britain, in part because of her stridency on Europe, the vision of "la dame de fer" is finding favour in Brussels.

If the former prime minister had wandered into the European parliament yesterday, she would have heard a distinctly Thatcherite speech. Jose Manuel Barroso, the centre-right former prime minister of Portugal, who is now the European commission president, told the EU that it must reform its hidebound economies or risk decline.

"Europe must do better. What we are proposing today is to release Europe's tremendous economic potential," Mr Barroso told MEPs as he relaunched the so-called "Lisbon agenda" to reform Europe's labour markets. For good measure, Mr Barroso echoed Lady Thatcher's famous declaration when he added: "There is not a credible alternative."

Dr Caroline Lucas, one of Britain's two Green MEPs, said the Barroso speech had a familiar ring. "This European commission is the most neo-Liberal in years. Listening to Barroso is like listening to Margaret Thatcher 15 years ago. This is just old-style economic dogma. It failed in Britain and is going to be reheated for Europe."

If the unease on the left is not enough to convince Lady Thatcher that her ideas are on the march again she should return to Paris, scene of her famous declaration on the steps of the British embassy that she would fight on after she failed to secure enough votes in the first round of the 1990 Tory leadership contest. Jacques Chirac, the French president, is so horrified by one of Mr Barroso's key ideas - the services directorate - that he despatched his prime minister to denounce it in unusually frank terms.

"This directive is unacceptable. We will take every measure to oppose this directive," Jean-Pierre Raffarin told the French national assembly of the measure which would liberalise trade in services. Mr Barroso indicated that he would water down the directive, but he insisted that barriers to the European single market must be removed. "No more foot-dragging on key areas of reform," he said.

With a referendum on the EU constitution months away, French sensitivities have to be handled carefully because there is widespread unease in Paris that France, which dominated the EU for long, is losing influence. The EU constitution is regularly denounced on the French left for being too "Anglo-Saxone" in liberalising economies. Mr Barroso normally chooses his words carefully, but over the weekend he took a swipe when he dismissed the cherished French way of directing most affairs in France from the centre. "Dirigisme is off the agenda," he told the Wall Street Journal.

One idea doing the rounds among pro-Europeans for next year's referendum is to cast the "Yes" camp as the true holders of the Thatcher flame. Campaigners are thinking of re-playing the tape of her notorious "no, no, no" Commons riposte in 1990 to a series of federalist ideas from her arch enemy Jacques Delors.

"Mr Delors said at a press conference the other day that he wanted the European parliament to be the democratic body of the community, he wanted the commission to be the executive and he wanted the council of ministers to be the senate. No, no, no," Lady Thatcher said in remarks which eventually led to her downfall after Geoffrey Howe resigned in disgust.

"Yes" campaigners will take great delight in pointing out that the EU constitution guarantees that none of Delors' ideas has come to pass.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1405029,00.html
I've cut a few bits out.

Is Barroso on the right track?
I have to say yes, and also that Thatcher had it right on this occasion.
 
Why not join join the USA instead of setting up the EU?
 
Now that we are pushing for the same economic agenda...
 
Hmmm, there is plenty of difference in economic agenda still. The EU is heading in a less federalistic direction than before, but that isn't to say it will ever turn in tho the USA. That is extremely unlikely. After all, we had a decade of undiluted Thatcherism, and currently have a mildly socialist outlook that would never happen stateside.
 
If the unease on the left is not enough to convince Lady Thatcher that her ideas are on the march again she should return to Paris, scene of her famous declaration on the steps of the British embassy that she would fight on after she failed to secure enough votes in the first round of the 1990 Tory leadership contest. Jacques Chirac, the French president, is so horrified by one of Mr Barroso's key ideas - the services directorate - that he despatched his prime minister to denounce it in unusually frank terms.

I'm interested in knowing more about this thing Chirac dislikes so much as to appoint someone to denounce it, if anyone knows more about it.
 
This is focuses more on that angle. Essentially, Barroso wants services to have the free movement as goods, by reducing local difference in regulation.

iht said:
France dashed a key part of the European Union's plans to enhance its single market on Wednesday, just as José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, laid out his vision to improve the Continent's economic competitiveness.
.
The French prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, said he would vigorously oppose a draft European law creating a single market for services, which would allow lawyers, architects and doctors, among many other professions, to work across the borders of the 25 countries of the European Union.
.
At a news conference, Barroso said he considered the services law "essential" but acknowledged "difficulties" in passing it. He said he would negotiate with French officials in the coming months.
.
But in Paris, Raffarin was unequivocal. "This directive is unacceptable," Raffarin told the French National Assembly, adding that he was worried about the consequences of privatizing public services. "We will take every measure to oppose this directive," Raffarin said.
.
French opposition is a significant blow for Barroso's commission, which has been trying to define itself as pro-growth and business friendly since taking office in November.
.
A speech by Barroso to the European Parliament on Wednesday had been billed as a break with the last five years, when economic targets were missed and Europe's single market was hampered by national governments protecting their local industries.
.
The services plan, one of several measures included in the speech, is considered by many economists as the most important. Services make up 70 percent of the European economy and are restricted within national boundaries by a web of local regulations. By contrast, food, clothing and other products circulate freely inside the bloc.
.
The services law is one of the few areas where Brussels can actually shape the performance of the European economy. In other areas - changing job market rules, for instance - the commission can only encourage national governments to implement changes.
.
In his speech, Barroso called for employment and growth to be the main priorities of the European Union over the next five years. "A job is the best weapon against poverty," he said, shifting the emphasis away from the social and environmental policies that the commission has formulated in recent years...[snip]
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/02/business/barroso.html
 
Thanks, that was what I wanted to know.
 
Winner said:
Barosso said only what is obvious. I apploud him.

More liberalism, that is what EU desperately needs ;)

Agreed.

I don't know what his plan is exactly, but I agree with the premisses.
 
Saying that Barroso's commission is the most Neo-Liberal in years is like saying that Clinton was the most Socialist US prez in years. Technically true, but misleading. He's fairly standard European right.

(Translation for Americans; a bloody-handed Commie Commissar! :evil: ;))
 
You know, a federal system is really the only way for the EU to go. Anything less is really just standng still, and will certainly not "unleash Europe's economic potential"
 
Scuffer said:
:confused: We are European, why would we do that?

Because the EU is considering members that aren't European such as Turkey so the United States would make just as much sense. And considering the far flung idea of Russia joining someday I would say the idea of joining the US shouldn't be all that confusing.

Anyways the EU is going to continue to have its problems if it doesn't make up it mind about what it wants to be.
 
Damnyankee said:
Hmm, Europe turning into states of the union... the mind boggles

Now that would be interesting. The United States of America (And Europe). Heh, it wouldn't work.
 
I doubt it would be called the United States of American and Europe. Just "The United States" would work considerably better. We'd also probably have Canada at that point, and maybe some chunks of Latin America.

Why wouldn't it work? Because people disagree?
 
Well, USA is actually only bunch of rebelous colonies ;) :D

So I propose they join EU and we will forgive them their revolution against us ;)
 
The Last Conformist said:
(Translation for Americans; a bloody-handed Commie Commissar! :evil: ;))
:lol:
not really important for the thread, but I have to say, that one actually gave me a real giggle :)
 
The EU should focus on being a superb economical union, rather than a political union. A lot of structural progress has been made on that already.

BTW, Thatcher was quite right, not joining the CAP.
 
Stapel said:
The EU should focus on being a superb economical union, rather than a political union. A lot of structural progress has been made on that already.
I agree with this.

I believe that the economical union should come through political means, and any political union should come through economic means.

In other words, politics should create a fair market. Having done that, if a political union is better, how and what it should be will be influenced by the market.
 
Back
Top Bottom