Geez, I guess I'm just not as inclined to jump up and down waving my arms in
the air as some people are.
Ed
> Ed Weick doubted:
> >
> > > Really ironic as the FTAA is all about the abolition of democracy.
> > > (Corporations can sue countries if the latter dare to put
enviro/social
> > > regulations in their way.)
> >
> > NAFTA has been in effect since 1994, and I for one don't feel that the
> > democracy I live in now is very different from the democracy I lived in
> > prior to NAFTA. It's about the same, good in many respects, bad in some
> > others, awful in the case of some. I would suspect the impact of the
FTAA
> > will be similar.
>
> The NAFTA was only the beginning, and other Canadians don't feel like you
> (but then, they don't have the Mounties' spokesman among their buddies),
> and the FTAA will be worse. I'm sorry Ed, but your statement is just
na�ve.
>
>
> > > > Providing more jobs at home could also stem the brain-drain which
> > > > Jamaica and other Caribbean countries are experiencing.
> > >
> > > On the contrary, the FTAA would make the poor countries' economy
pretty
> > > flat.
> >
> > I really don't follow the logic here. [...] These places can't be more
flat
> > than they are now.
>
> Ask some Mexican farmers or Canadian activists and you'll see that this is
> plain wrong. Btw, your comparison to Ireland is flawed, because Ireland
> received (and still receives) big subsidies from the EU: Ireland is by far
> the largest net recipient of EU subsidies per capita [except the tiny
> Luxembourg], $770/capita in 1997. You don't expect that in FTAA, the U$
> will subsidize the Caribbean countries like that (or at all), do you ?
> On the contrary, the big corporations will suck them empty.
>
>
> > > Just wait until the EU-extension to Eastern Europe (and later possibly
> > > to North Africa). With this, the EU will have the "cheapo backyard"
just
> > > like the U$ has in South America -- even closer...
> >
> > I don't think so. The EU is a pretty exclusive club. The kinds of things
a
> > country has to do to become part of it are pretty rigorous. I'm not
fully
> > current on the situation, but I believe that Poland and Hungary have had
to
> > jump through some tough hoops to be considered for membership.
>
> The "exclusive club" is more PR-hype than reality. (For instance, the EU
> plays the Big Greenie, but the EU's capital Brussels doesn't even have a
> sewage plant -- their crap and chemicals get pumped directly into the sea!
> I'm sure Poland and Hungary etc. can align with this just fine. ;-}
> Austria, Sweden and Finland had to kiss goodbye various environmental
> regulations when they joined the EU in 1995 -- for EU free trade!)
>
> Already now, the EU has different "speeds" -- e.g. not all EU countries
> join(ed) the Schengen space (without border checks) or the Euro currency.
> Contrary to the EU PR, this is not just a temporary transition-situation,
> but will stay or even get worse with further EU expansions.
>
> Regarding the EU expansion to the Eastern colonies: Greed will prevail.
> Of course it will be desastrous for both the poor, farmers and taxpayers
> (i.e. for the majority), bad for social cohesion/justice/stability and
> good for organized crime and other neoliberals, but the apparatchiks
> in Brussels and their corporate masters could care less about the
> former majority. The keywords are "fait accompli" and "salami tactics".
> As the prime minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker once described it
> with unusual frankness (in 1999): "We decide something, then wait a while
> what happens. If there's no big turmoil or rioting, because most people
> don't understand what was decided anyway, then we continue -- step by
step,
> until there's no return."
>
> Btw, I think Keith's forecast of a quick and painless demise of the EU
> is way too optimistic. A long and painful Yugoslavian-style breakup
> (probably *after* the enlargement to the East) seems much more likely. :-(
>
> ---
>
> REH asked:
> > (Or is this just the old tendency that we used to notice in college
about
> > the British proclivity for denying the existance of any point of view
other
> > than their own.
>
> KH replied:
> > Tut, tut . . . I think all nationalities think like that.
>
> Yeah right, it is pure coincidence that English is now world language !
>
> Chris
>
>
