On his two-day tour to Moscow, Berlin and Luxembourg, Blair has said that the shock rejections in two founding member states are a sign that the EU's priorities -- and its finances -- need to be reformulated.
"The context of this discussion is one in which two countries have now voted against the EU constitution. Why? Because people in Europe did not feel that sufficient attention was being paid to their concerns," he said in Germany.
France is backed by most other member states when it argues that the rebate must be reduced to take account of Britain's greater wealth and the needs of the poorer countries of central and eastern Europe.
Sounds like the old Robin Hood "take from the rich and give to the poor" brand of socialism, to me. Britain does better than the rest, so penalize them more for it.
France can't be the main cog economically. So naturally, any position or policy that drags down those doing better than them, is preferable to improving their own economy and attaining the level of competency necessary, to attain such successful status. This has always been France's Modus Operandi. (Read some history, if you don't believe me.)
It reminds me of the old cliche: Misery loves company.
2 comments:
The United Kingdom is, naturally enough, a core member of the Anglosphere.
They would be better off pursuing a course of reunification with their primary former colonies. Drop the nanny-state BS and apply for statehood (singular or plural) in the Union.
The Royals could retire from public life (read: embarassment) and the U.S. Navy picks up 3 light carriers, 4 boomers, and some decent attack boats too.
I had some Australian friends visiting last month. I told them that when it's all said and done, it will be the English speaking countries that will have to stick together.
They agreed.
Post a Comment