Showing posts with label France. Show all posts
Showing posts with label France. Show all posts

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

3 Comments on the SGP3

I would like to contribute three comments regarding the recent Franco-German agreement arrived at recently. This post is a poor contribution to more enlightened commentators’ criticisms of the proposed SGP3.

The first, is a criticism to the article from Charlemagne, which completely fails to mention what I think is probably the most important part of the agreement. The last four paragraphs describe the issues both countries want to see changed that require treaty changes. It fascinates me how the Economist would fail to mention that apparently France has come on board with Germany in terms of cancelling council voting rights. This isn't the most intelligent proposal that's ever come out of a Franco-German agreement, and is offensive to the intellect of anyone reading it and makes a mockery of European solidarity and democracy. It's an insult to the intellect, because anyone who expects every single country in the Euro-zone (much less in the EU) to approve a treaty change denying any given Member state of the EU the right to representation is either disconnected from reality or seriously thinks the rulers of small countries are stupid and their citizens inert.

If we have learned anything since the creation of the Eurozone and the misfit application of the SGP, is that indeed we are not at all equal. Several countries have failed their SGP obligations. Portugal in 2002, Germany and France in 2003, Italy and the Netherlands in 2004 and finally Greece in 2005 all failed to live up to the SGP. The only country that ever came close to being punished was Greece. When the problem hurt France and Germany they decided to change the rules. That's why we are now talking of the SGP3 rather than SGP2. As Caballero, Cababllero and Losada 2006 and Chang 2005 describe, Germany and France are clearly more equal than the rest of the Member states. Call them primus inter pares. As Thornhallson 2006 explains this is understandable. However, it is morally highly objectionable. It should be clear to anyone dedicating even a minute of their time to the ongoing debate about the reform of the SGP, that although France is endorsing a German proposal to withdraw votes from countries not fulfilling their obligations under the SGP, neither France nor Germany will ever let other countries do that to themselves. This is a policy for others and shamefully so.

SGP 3 Update: The Franco-German Compromise

France and Germany seem to have reached a compromise over the SGP3. As Charlemagne describes it, the Germans seem to have dropped their "hawkish" demands about the semi-automaticity of fines at the preventive stage and in return got the French to accept supporting the German ideas of creating a debt restructuring mechanism for the Euro-zone and extending the EFSF forever. According to the communiqué, only the later of these proposals would require a treaty change. This was all agreed over the week end and came to light in the last day or so. The German press was not amused, and I am certainly not impressed. However, I leave more comments for later.

Friday, 8 October 2010

Is saudade why all the Frenchmen fear English?

So I came across this post from the very liked (by me) Jean Quatremer of "Libération".

In that article he elaborates on the fact that the English language is all too pervasive in the EU institutions and how that's bad for everyone, particularly his country's elite. His argument, although I don't agree with it, should not be dismissed altogether. As the national of a small country with a beautiful and flexible language and a phenomenally imponent body of European, African and South American literature, I understand the "saudade" we may feel towards our own languages but to use it to argue what he argues seems insulting, sad and oh so cliché for a Frenchman to do.

His hypothesis runs something like this: "Language is an important channel of communication. Some ideas are inherently better articulated in one language than in another, if for no other reason that they might have developed in the context of the evolution of that (language's) society. So to favour one language to another (or many others), deprives us of the contributions (intellectual and, in this specific case, political) originating elsewhere (where another language is spoken)."

This is tantamount to arguing that some ideas are inherently French, or for that sake, English, Portuguese, Hungarian, Swedish, or whatever. And not in the sense that they belong to that culture, but that they can only be expressed in that language. So I don't agree.

Tuesday, 21 September 2010

Link: "A dinner as bitter as bile" @ http://blogs.euobserver.com/persson/

I found this blog post and couldn't let it go by. It was posted by Matt Persson, a regular contributor with his own blog at euobserver.com. I am posting it here for fear that it may be erazed in the future. It is a transcript from a homonimous article of Le Monde. If, as according to the article it is a reliable account of what went on, then one should be really concerned... On the other hand, Berlusconi's contributions are as ridiculous at the EU level as anywhere else!