http://es.video.yahoo.com/watch/2393413/7155876
Madame Sarkozy
Europe still a tower of Babel, not one voice IT would be tempting to believe that European leaders had finally settled on a co-ordinated plan to confront the global financial crisis. At Sunday's meeting in Paris, Eurozone leaders agreed to pump billions into tottering banks and underwrite inter-bank loans French President and European Union head Nicolas Sarkozy said that "we need unity, which is what we achieved today click, went the cameras The rebellious Irish kicked off the disunity a few weeks ago with its E400 billion ($770 billion) bank guarantee scheme for Ireland's six biggest banks. The Brits and EU honchos in Brussels were miffed that Ireland's unilateral action put pressure on others to follow suit to avoid a flood of money into Irish banks. So out came the rhetoric. After hosting a meeting of G8 leaders on Saturday, October 4, Sarkozy said that co-ordination was paramount: "What is of essence is that Europe should exist and respond with one voice But hang on, Nic. The next day, the Germans did their own thing, too. Having described Dublin's unilateral actions as unacceptable and complaining that "the Irish way is not the right way", German Chancellor Angela Merkel snubbed Saturday's talk of EU co-operation. On Sunday, October 5, the German Government upped the ante with its E1 trillion guarantee for all private bank deposits. Not very EU-neighbourly of the Chancellor to encourage surrounding depositors to stash their money in a secure German bank. Then the Greeks moved to shore up their bank deposits. Then the Danes did it. And the Italians and the Dutch. By last Wednesday, five EU countries - Britain, Italy, France, Austria and Spain - had drawn up individual plans to prop up their banking systems with taxpayer money. Eschewing co-ordination, European countries opted for what The New York Times described as an "ugly disarray" of "self-interested policies to protect their citizens and banks first That's the problem with grand-sounding plans about EU co-operation and the "essence of Europe". In the abstract, everyone loves the vibe of the thing. Meetings are held. Hands are shaken over promises of EU solidarity. The continent must forge transnational solutions, say the solemn Europhile leaders. Click, click, go the cameras Unprecedented, perhaps, but not surprising unless you mistakenly imagined that national self-interest became a historical relic under the EU project. Born of fine intentions in the aftermath of World War II, the EU embodied a noble idea that a European free-trade union would bind European countries through trade ties, making war between them impossible. But building a new political EU behemoth has stalled In June, the Irish sent a simple message to the bureaucrats in Brussels. In a referendum, 52 per cent of Irish said no to the Lisbon Treaty, the EU's latest attempt to boost its own political authority by requiring member states to cede political sovereignty to a transnational body The Irish were uneasy at not being able to vote for a new EU president who speaks for them. Likewise, they were concerned over an EU diplomatic corps collected under a new EU foreign affairs minister. Not to mention the treaty's attempt to give the EU (now representing 27 countries, up from 15 in 2003) the power to legislate in areas such as immigration and simultaneously reducing the number of policy areas that require unanimity from member states. In any language, that is a raid on a nation-state's sovereignty EU leaders slapped down the Irish for their rude rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. The unstated EU mindset was that the Irish would have to keep voting until they got the right answer Europhiles, who learned very little from the 2005 debacle, have a knack for not listening to the people. Back then the EU's new constitution was lauded as the "birth certificate of the United States of Europe" by then German minister for Europe Hans Martin Bury. French voters said "non" and the Dutch said "nee". (Just as the Danes said "nej" in 1992 over concerns that EU citizenship would replace national citizenship So what did Europe do? Repackaged the grand-sounding constitution into a more mundane-sounding treaty. This time there was no lofty talk about the United States of Europe, only a tricky resolve to make sure the people did not have a vote on the insatiable political ambitions for the EU in case the people, once again, said no to the EU project After the Irish no vote, Merkel and Sarkozy reverted to Eurobabble, saying that the Lisbon Treaty was aimed at "making Europe more democratic". But when most people think about democracy, they tend to think of their right to vote on matters of national significance. The Lisbon Treaty works in the opposite direction, transferring power from the burghers in the suburbs to Brussels They didn't count on the pluck of the Irish and an Irish constitution that required a national vote
<< Back to article
