Ed Weick replied:
> Perhaps I am naive, but I sincerely believe that lots of Canadians see
> things the way I do.
Bad enough. Fortunately there are also other Canadians, such as the
Council of Canadians, or many I met on the Internet (hi Arthur ;-) ).
> 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.
Hilarious. This just confirms that you swallowed his PR whole (and only
this was my point about the "buddy", nothing else). If anyone invites a
totalitarian system, it is uncritical people like you and "Quebec Wall"-
defenders like him. (Btw, having the 'wrong' friends got travelers to
Quebec rejected at the Canadian border. So much for "free movement of
people" in NAFTA...)
> > 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.
Any similarity with economists and Mounties' spokesmen is purely accidental.
Mexican farmers aren't exactly activists, are they ? They've "been there,
done that".
> I've spent some time in Jamaica and have my own take on the state
> of that country.
... long before it joined FTAA.
> >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.
They won't be so lucky in the FTAA, so why advocate it ?
> 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.
People can be "sucked empty" too. Think of sweatshops, slave plantations
and prostitutes. At least the former 2 is what you mean by "foreign
investment", isn't it ?
> > 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.
You missed my point completely: That the EU doesn't walk the great talk.
When they have such a bad enforcement they shouldn't boast about tough
enviro regulations (and even use these as an argument for/against joining).
Btw, today I learned that Switzerland must revoke the ban of various
allergenic/toxic food-additives if it wants to become "EU-compatible".
The ban is a "trade barrier"!
> > 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.
Great "swap": To get more money for the rich, you have to give up the
environment. A familiar thought in Canada, I guess. (Environmentally,
Canada is the 2nd worst in the OECD, after the U$.)
> > 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.
Are you suggesting that Mr. Juncker didn't know what he was talking about?
> 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.
??? Where did I insult them or even suggest they are dumb ???
> >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.
This is a main "advertisement" for the EU. However, the EU is taking
credit that it doesn't deserve: The peace for 54 years after WWII had
very little to do with the EU, especially with the EU model of the future
(and that's what the debate is about). The peace was in the Europe of
nation-states in loose cooperation. The (future) EU, however, is quite
a different animal: a centralistic, undemocratic, militarized bloc that
is antagonized and separated towards outside (keyword: "Fortress EUrope")
and has little social coherence/justice/equality inside, being controlled
and bulked by an Orwellian surveillance system (Europol). Historically,
such blocs are the classic recipe for wars (macro-wars against outside,
micro-wars inside, and devastating civil wars when they finally break up).
By 2003, the EU will have its own quick-intervention army with an action
radius of 4,000 km *beyond* the EU's outer borders. The German peace
movement has alerted that the German army is being transformed from an
army of defense into an army of attrition. Kosovo was only a "test run"...
(which was called an "ordinary war of attrition" by OSCE experts, and
which violated the Geneva Conventions, German Constitution, 2+4 treaty,
and NATO charter -- but who cares in the "peace project EU" ?)
Cooperation and organization in Europe could and should be very different
than the (coming) EU. That's what my critique is about, not separatism or
nationalism.
It is an irony of history that the EU proponents are argueing that "we
need a powerful EU-bloc to stand up against the world-cop U$A." It's
a "race to the bottom"... :-(
I say: We should show that a different model of cooperation is possible
and better ! But try to tell that to the greedheads in Brussels...
Chris
