Sorry, I sent off a quick and rather sarcastic response to this message.
I'll try again, and be as civil as possible this time.
> 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.
Perhaps I am naive, but I sincerely believe that lots of Canadians see
things the way I do. The Mounties' spokesman is a friend who I see once or
twice a year, not a "buddy". There is a difference. However, point well
taken. In a non-corporate, unglobalized, activist-run Canada, one will have
to be careful about who one's friends are. Incorrect behaviour could be
serious. That old train to Siberia could be waiting.
> > > > 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.
Whom should I ask? I find that too many activists spout absolute nonsense
with total conviction. They are classic "true believers", Biblical in their
rhetoric. I've spent some time in Jamaica and have my own take on the state
of that country.
>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.
Well, good for Ireland! Whatever combination of things is making it go does
seem to be working. Caribbean countries should be so lucky. There is
little there to suck except palm trees and beaches, which are, I have to
admit, being sucked. They are in desperate need of diversified foreign
investment but are having trouble attracting it because they have so little
to offer.
> > > 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. ;-}
Well, Brussels will simply have to do something about that, won't it. BTW,
wouldn't the same problem exist if Belgium wasn't part of the EU? I would
add that pumping shit into the sea isn't unique to the EU. Victoria was
accused of the same kind of thing a few years ago. I believe Montreal was
too.
> Austria, Sweden and Finland had to kiss goodbye various environmental
> regulations when they joined the EU in 1995 -- for EU free trade!)
To get something you may have to give something up.
> 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.
I understand that, but I believe the idea is to iron things out over time.
The absence of border checks predates the EU in some cases. I recall
driving from Germany to France and back in about 1990 and encountering no
border posts.
> 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."
I simply don't agree. I find your take on Eastern Europe a little short of
insulting, though not much. Poland, Hungary and the Chech Republic have
long traditions of democracy and openness. I have relatives in Poland and
from time to time read Polish newspapers. People there are not as dumb as
you seem to suggest.
>tw, 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. :-(
Personally, I wish the EU every success. It was partly created on economic
grounds - the free movement of goods, services and people. But it was also
partly created to knit Europe together into something in which the kinds of
disastrous wars that have taken place in the past will no longer be
possible. Perhaps that is reaching too high.
Ed
