France going into a 3rd national lockdown
#11
That wasn't him? France had to fall into line after Berlin caved first, Paris wanted to keep using it (an admitted weakness of the EU approach. The UK vaccination program is so far, the sole benefit I've seen of Brexit). As soon as they could, they rescinded the ban. This is a really strange stick to beat him with when France was way back in the queue of countries that suspended AZ. I assume you think the PMs of Denmark and the Netherlands are also Trumpian?

Although bashing anything vaguely EU is your raison d'etre I suppose...
Reply
#12
Let's consider what the Macron government is saying, it's positively Trumpian.

"The United Kingdom has taken great pride in vaccinating well with the first dose except they have a problem with the second dose”

"You can’t be playing like this, a bit of blackmail"

“Everything points to thinking it is quasi-ineffective on people older than 65, some say those 60 years or older."

Britain has taken “a lot of risks” in rolling out its speedy Covid vaccination programme, France’s Europe minister, Clément Beaune, said as officials in Brussels claimed the EU had “nothing to envy” from nations such as the UK, the US and Israel.

France will have caught up with Britain on the number of people vaccinated against Covid-19 "in a few weeks", President Emmanuel Macron said in an interview on Sunday amid a row with Britain over vaccine access.

What with Macron also courting the far right to head off the threat of Marine Le Pen, yes - postiively Trumpian.
Reply
#13
(04-01-2021, 05:32 PM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote: That wasn't him? France had to fall into line after Berlin caved first, Paris wanted to keep using it (an admitted weakness of the EU approach. The UK vaccination program is so far, the sole benefit I've seen of Brexit). As soon as they could, they rescinded the ban. This is a really strange stick to beat him with when France was way back in the queue of countries that suspended AZ. I assume you think the PMs of Denmark and the Netherlands are also Trumpian?

Although bashing anything vaguely EU is your raison d'etre I suppose...

Aplogies, Macron wasn't one who made an issue of the AZ side-effects. He just dubbed it 'quasi-ineffective' for over 65s, as thoughb there are some sort of physiological changes at that age rendering it ineffective. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55919245

The reason is the same. Deflect from the procurement farce.

I don't know if the PMs of Denmark and Netherlands are Trumpian but they have the same motivation to try to cover-up for the joke EU procurement. I wonder how many refused vaccines and died or were in a chain of causation leading to deaths as a result?

Although blindly defending anything vaguely EU is your raison d'etre I suppose...
Reply
#14
(04-01-2021, 05:32 PM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote: That wasn't him? France had to fall into line after Berlin caved first, Paris wanted to keep using it (an admitted weakness of the EU approach. The UK vaccination program is so far, the sole benefit I've seen of Brexit). As soon as they could, they rescinded the ban. This is a really strange stick to beat him with when France was way back in the queue of countries that suspended AZ. I assume you think the PMs of Denmark and the Netherlands are also Trumpian?

Although bashing anything vaguely EU is your raison d'etre I suppose...

But I thought all E.U.  member states were sovereign and could act how they wished. We have been told numerous times on here that a state could procure and approve vaccines without need to refer to the E.U.
Reply
#15
(04-01-2021, 09:23 PM)JOK Wrote:
(04-01-2021, 05:32 PM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote: That wasn't him? France had to fall into line after Berlin caved first, Paris wanted to keep using it (an admitted weakness of the EU approach. The UK vaccination program is so far, the sole benefit I've seen of Brexit). As soon as they could, they rescinded the ban. This is a really strange stick to beat him with when France was way back in the queue of countries that suspended AZ. I assume you think the PMs of Denmark and the Netherlands are also Trumpian?

Although bashing anything vaguely EU is your raison d'etre I suppose...

But I thought all E.U.  member states were sovereign and could act how they wished. We have been told numerous times on here that a state could procure and approve vaccines without need to refer to the E.U.

They can, as based on the fact that Hungary has approved both Sputnik and Sinovac and the fact that the EMA recommended against suspending use of the AZ vaccine which was followed up on by member states like Austria and Finland opting not to suspend usage.
Reply
#16
(04-01-2021, 08:02 PM)Bortolazzi's Barnet Wrote: Aplogies, Macron wasn't one who made an issue of the AZ side-effects. He just dubbed it 'quasi-ineffective' for over 65s, as thoughb there are some sort of physiological changes at that age rendering it ineffective. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55919245

The reason is the same. Deflect from the procurement farce.

I don't know if the PMs of Denmark and Netherlands are Trumpian but they have the same motivation to try to cover-up for the joke EU procurement. I wonder how many refused vaccines and died or were in a chain of causation leading to deaths as a result?

Although blindly defending anything vaguely EU is your raison d'etre I suppose...

In my earlier post I said that the collectivist EU approach was a weakness and that the UK vaccine program was a benefit of Brexit (making the score currently 10000000 - 1). With that in mind I don't agree I'm "blindly defending" the EU at all.

As Borin' said, individual members were perfectly within their rights to plough their own furrow but the likes of Macron don't have the nuts to go against the grain. There's plenty to criticise about the EU. It's a neo-liberal, right-wing capitalist wet dream (which makes it weirder that the UK idiot-right decided they hate it. Foreigners though, eh). It's just that the opportunities and outcomes (we love that word don't we?) for British people were much much much much better as a member than outwith. 

Macron is many things but a maniacal sociopath isn't one of them so I'll never agree with any comparisons to Trump. Going from having one of the best initial responses to the pandemic and cases almost vanishing in the summer to one of the worst over the past 6 months is pretty bloody disappointing though and I completely agree that they are trying to deflect from their crap procurement.
Reply
#17
(04-02-2021, 06:55 AM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote: In my earlier post I said that the collectivist EU approach was a weakness and that the UK vaccine program was a benefit of Brexit (making the score currently 10000000 - 1). With that in mind I don't agree I'm "blindly defending" the EU at all.

As Borin' said, individual members were perfectly within their rights to plough their own furrow but the likes of Macron don't have the nuts to go against the grain. There's plenty to criticise about the EU. It's a neo-liberal, right-wing capitalist wet dream (which makes it weirder that the UK idiot-right decided they hate it. Foreigners though, eh). It's just that the opportunities and outcomes (we love that word don't we?) for British people were much much much much better as a member than outwith. 

Collins Dictionary definition.
Neoliberalism: a modern politico-economic theory favouring free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services, etc.
 
Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy.
 
Implementing farming subsidies and other interventionist measures, such as the bail-out of Greece, have traditionally been left-wing measures. The E.U. Certainly has price controls particularly in the agricultural sector. You certainly can’t accuse the E.U. of deregulation and their vindictive handling of Brexit proves the lowering of trade barriers is not their thing. Would an organisation wedded to the idea of privatisation and capitalism threaten the state violation of intellectual property and banning private companies from freely supplying customers with whom they have contracts? If they believe in a deregulated capital market why are they throwing a wobbly over the city of London? 
 
Its sole aim from day one was to create a Europe wide organisation that would eventually centralise all power and control (not very liberal or conservative I would suggest.) and essentially stop any form of dissent by brainwashing each proceeding generation that they owe their loyalty to the EU Empire and little loyalty to their home nations. A trait exemplified by the USSR.
I can’t say whether it is left wing or right but it’s slowly heading towards totalitarianism.
Reply
#18
You're calling the EU, an organisation that's built around the four freedoms of goods, capital, services and people, an organisation that limits state intervention into industry, an organisation that doesn't even apply tariffs to developing nations even on the import of goods that compete with EU produce, an organisation that has fostered the idea of comparative advantage across multiple countries, interventionist in the markets?

The very foundation of the modern EU was set out and designed by Margaret bloody Thatcher for crying out loud. The dominant parties in the Parliament and the Council are economically liberal or Christian democrats.
Reply
#19
I wasn’t “calling out” the E.U. I offered a rebuttal to ChamonixBaggie’s assertion that the E.U. is neo-liberal and right-wing. I gave the dictionary definition of those terms:  favouring free trade,  minimal government intervention in business, reduced public spending, eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing state influence in the economy, etc.
So, isn’t the CAP a prime example of price controls? The block has ‘free trade’ with only 80 countries and then only to a certain limit and not on all products.  Not quite ‘free trade’ is it? Passing laws to allow the banning of exports on any goods and stealing intellectual rights smacks of intervention in businesses. Helping to finance the moving of a manufacturing plant from an EU state to a country outside the EU sounds like intervention in businesses to me.   Financing the construction of needless multibillion euro vanity projects doesn’t sound like “reduced public spending” to me. Do you really believe the EU is wedded to deregulation? If the EU is a “a neo-liberal, right-wing capitalist wet dream” which believes in deregulating capital markets why are they so worried about the City of London supposedly deregulating? If there is little or no state influence in the economy how do you explain the criteria that has to be met (or supposedly met) to be eligible to join the Euro?  So, three of the “four freedoms of goods, capital, services” you chant, aren’t quite so free as you make out.
You recon the EU doesn’t apply tariffs to developing countries, really?
 
The eligibility criteria for the standard GSP – which offers a reduction in duties for approximately 66% of all tariff lines ( note: not 100% of all tariffs and not necessarily a 100% reduction) – were tightened to include only the most vulnerable countries with low incomes. As a result, the group of beneficiaries was substantially reduced from 176 to 23 during the 2016-2017 period, and comprised only 15 in 2020, while countries classified by the World Bank as middle-income countries were  taken out of the scheme. And those that qualify are made to jump through certain hoops. (Conforming to Civil liberties etc. which is fair enough) so, not as philanthropic as you suggest. Not quite ‘free trade’ is it?
 
Meat imports into the EU:
There are tariffs applied. “It is not a flat rate: instead, there's a fee per kilo and a percentage of the value. And the more it is butchered and processed, the higher the tariff on entering the European Union. Why so high? Because the European Union has acted as a fortress to protect its farmers ...  against cheap imports. New Zealand, for instance, produces more efficiently in bigger farm units, with bigger flocks and blessed with better quality pasture.”  Not quite ‘free trade’ is it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55209329
 
U.K. Lamb now faces a 12.8% tariff on frozen, chilled and processed meat. Not quite ‘free trade’ is it?
The EU has 40 trade agreements in place with under 80 countries. It offers preferential market access to lower income countries under the G. S. P. Also, Third country markets which are an important sources of raw materials and goods for EU companies also have preferential tariffs. i.e., ‘we need that stuff and we can’t get it from the EU so let’s not penalise ourselves’
Some of the EU tariff rates are:
Dairy                                 40%
Sugar and confectionary      25%
Beverages                         18% (ish)
Cereals, clothing, fruit, veg, 16%
Not quite ‘free trade’ is it?  
Another poster on here is constantly telling us how much better the disabled, minorities and the poorest in society are treated in the EU, something which, he insists, runs counter to conservatism. So, do you believe the E.U. is neo-liberal and right-wing?
 
 
Reply
#20
That completely ignores quotas and free trade agreements.

For example, keeping with lamb, New Zealand is able to export nearly 115,000 tonnes of lamb, mutton and beef tariff free (https://www.nzmeatboard.org/quotas/eu-sh...%20Board.) to the EU due to quotas. New Zealand exports 42,000 tonnes of lamb in total (https://ahdb.org.uk/news/new-zealand-she...wer-levels) which means that, as a result, all New Zealand lamb imported into the EU is done so tariff free in spite of the tariff. And developing nations are exempt from EU tariffs so the only nations that are affected by things like that are competing markets, many of which the EU has free trade agreements with anyway (including the EU).

NTBs cover 2/3 of the cost of trade, that is what the EU focuses on reducing. It isn't 1800 anymore. That is the costs associated with trade in the modern world, that is why comprehensive free trade agreements and standard equivalence is important.

And yes, I do believe the EU is fundamentally neoliberal and this is coming from a liberal. There's some things I don't like, like the farming subsidies, but to its core it is a neoliberal bloc. The functions of the EU just existing massively cut total public spending by the virtue of tasks not needing to be replicated 27 times. The EU can't unilaterally ban exports, it can provide oversight to allow it but that function is a member states competency.

There's a reason why people like Hayek were so enamored in it and why every single liberal party in Europe is pro-EU, even those not in the EU.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
{myadvertisements[zone_2]}