tabbs wrote:John S wrote:The EU needs to do a better job of advertizing its philosophy around the world, even in the US.
Since that kind of advertising does not even work in the EU, how can it work elsewhere? Or, put slightly differently, if the EU does not have a common or shared philosophy apart from "my country first, and no more compromises", as we just learned yesterday, how could it promote one in other countries?
Christian
OK, then let the individual countries do the advertising. The New York Times had an article today on the Summit between EU leaders. The negativity is expected in the US media as a unified, strong Europe is a challenge the US does not want to encounter.
Note the text below that I have placed in bold type. This is what the nations of the EU have to counter...that the EU economic practice of being a social practice is stuck in the past and the US/UK practice of profits first for the rich few is the future. It isn't that hard to do.
You offer your people a choice. An American type economy with many low paying jobs and plenty of debt, no benefits or perks, 18 h/day work at two jobs, low pay (that's why you need to work 18 h/day) or an EU type economy with higher wages, lifetime benefits, sensible working hours, etc. Then lay out the pluses and minuses of both. Then do whatever it takes to assure that type of lifestyle.
EU solidarity crumbles -- summit ends in failure
Lack of accord could affect union's foreign policy negotiations
Elaine Sciolino, New York Times
Sunday, 2005-06-19
Brussels -- Something shattered in Europe on Friday night.
The leaders of the 25 European Union nations went home after a failed two- day summit in anger and in shame, as domestic politics and national interests defeated lofty notions of sacrifice and solidarity for the benefit of all.
The battle over money and the shelving of the bloc's historic constitution, after the crushing "no" votes in France and the Netherlands, stripped away all pretense of an organization with a common vision and reflected the fears of many leaders as they face rising popular opposition to the project called Europe.
Their attacks on one another after they failed to agree on a future budget -- for 2007 through 2013 -- seemed destructive and unnecessary, and it is not at all clear that they will be able to repair their relationships. And even if they do, the damage to the organization will endure.
Most embarrassing for the European Union was an attempt by its 10 newest members to salvage the budget agreement late Friday night. They offered to give up some of their own aid from the union so that the older and richer members could keep theirs.
For the new members, that offer was an opportunity to prove their worth. Criticizing the "egoism" of countries driven by national interests, Prime Minister Marek Belka of Poland said, "Nobody will be able to say that for Poland, the European Union is just a pile of money."
But for the older members, it was a humiliation. "When I heard one after the other, all the new member states -- each poorer than the other -- say that in the interest of an agreement they would be ready to renounce part of the money they are due, I was ashamed," Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's prime minister and the outgoing European Union president, told journalists after talks collapsed.
Even as a number of leaders stated that the European Union is in one of the worst crises of more than half a century of European integration, none of them predicted its end. Certainly, it will have to continue to negotiate over money; and it can survive without a constitution using existing treaties.
But the crisis comes at a time when the European Union has begun to play a much more important role in the world, most visibly in negotiations over one of the most serious global security issues: Iran's nuclear program.
President Bush will welcome Juncker; Jose Manuel Barroso, the head of the bloc's administrative arm; and Javier Solana, its foreign policy chief, to the White House on Monday, and he will underscore the need for a strong Europe.
There have been other signs that the Bush administration has sought to work more closely with the European Union. It has begun to work with France, Germany and Britain on the European Union-led talks on Iran. On Wednesday, the United States and the European Union will hold a meeting of more than 80 countries in Brussels to help map out projects for Iraq's reconstruction.
Whether the crisis will affect the bloc's foreign policy remains unclear.
But the failure of the summit laid bare the deep divide within the European Union between two grand but competing visions of Europe.
Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain leads the camp that wants a Europe with fewer trade and employment barriers and a more free-market orientation to better compete against rising giants like India and China. He rejected all criticism of Britain for vetoing the final agreement on the budget, which would have required Britain to reduce the annual rebate (now $6 billion a year) that it gets back from its contribution to the European Union budget.
By contrast, President Jacques Chirac of France and some of his allies are skeptical of what they call the "Anglo-Saxon model" and protective of the continental "social model" that offers citizens a protective economic security shield. He refused to compromise on Blair's demand that France reduce the $13 billion in annual farm subsidies it receives every year from the European Union.
Meanwhile, Blair, who assumes the six-month rotating European Union presidency next month, claims he will use the current crisis to push for what he believes are needed reforms.
"I'm not prepared to have someone tell me there is only one view of what Europe is and that's the view expressed by certain people at certain points in time," he told reporters Friday, in a clear reference to Chirac. "Europe isn't owned by any of them; Europe is owned by all of us."
In a BBC interview Saturday, the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, said Britain hopes to "lead the debate" on the divided Europe, adding, "It is essentially a division between whether you want a European Union that is able to cope with the future or whether you want a European Union that is trapped in the past."
But the feelings against Britain among some other members are so raw that even Juncker, who is passionate about collegiality, said that he would "not be listening" when Blair outlines his priorities to the European Parliament next week. He said he would hand over the presidency "without comment and without advice, because clearly my advice is not appreciated."
Lost in Friday night's turmoil over the budget debacle was a joint communique issued by the leaders that their constitution could one day be implemented. It did not explain how, given the French and Dutch rejections and the requirement that all 25 countries ratify.
Before the referendums in both countries, there was widespread speculation that there could be a "Plan B" either to revise the current text or salvage the parts that are not objectionable to voters.
In announcing that the constitution would be put on hold so that it could be better understood, Juncker insisted that there would be no "Plan B." Instead, he told reporters Thursday night, "there is a Plan D -- for dialogue and debate."
That prompted jokes throughout the corridors of the conference building that the D in "Plan D" could stand for other things as well: defeat, denial and even death.