Ci-dessous ma réaction à l’éditorial de Guillaume Goubert dans la Croix de ce jour.
Où sont les vrais journalistes???
Ps: désolé pour les fautes stimulées par un blackberry anglophone démodé !!
|Sent: Tuesday, 1 September 2015 19:48
Dear Mr Ganesh
Something struck me in your comment published in the FT yesterday. Indeed you equate the EU to just a « single market with few rules attached ». As you may know, the acronym EU stands for European Union. It is a political union laid out in the Single Act that came into force in 1992. Reducing it to a market completely misses the point of what the EU is. If otherwise a goal to achieve in the next Cameron’s renegotiation, there is far more to renegotiate then!
This however underlines how much the EU debate in the UK fails to address what the EU actually is all about: coordination efficiency in a now multipolar world. The EU is the opportunity cost of mitigating coordination failure, regional instability and dilution risks in multi-sided global affairs. Can each European nation achieve greater efficiency in retaining leadership and protecting their own interests, individually in a post-cold war, globalised world while hedging out any risk of intra-continental conflicts, a sad reality that turned this part of the world into a regular bloodshed over the last millennia, while not sacrificing their higher quality standards? How far did the EU hamper their national growth? How did it impact the British prosperity whose economic drivers are professional services, London speculative property prices and tax dumpings? As an example, could have the UK managed to resurrect the City of London as a world financial hub without 1) simplified access to pools of well-trained multilingual European talents able to move and settle freely and 2) tax dumping its European neighbours within a single market? What is those specific things the UK owns in sufficient quantity to believe that any Bric nation would give it a better deal if outside the EU? Except probably for tax evasion and money laundering?
Since you talked about British pro-Europeans lack of morality by not acknowledging their misjudgements, what about the Eurosceptics in failing to respond to the above remarks? Unless if ignorant, is it moral of them to lie about the way Europe works and adds value? Is it honest of them to say they would be better off chasing (now faltering) emerging market growth instead of dealing with an Union that includes 4 of the G7 nations, as if high growth rates were indication of bigger aggregate wealth?! Yes there are tons of money to be made there but still they are far poorer than the EU. Would you part away from the rich, however troubled, to speculate on the slums of politically corrupt, poverty stricken emerging countries?
In fact, being European is a radical shift in the British political identity. Its past policies were anchored in submitting immediate neighbours, play divisive continental alliances and alienate the rest of World to its sole economic interests. As the latter disappeared while the former is about to disappear with devolution, what to do with the middle one? Flee it? Divide it? Dissolve in? Or be novel about it: lead it?
Sadly, the English-dominated British political elite is too anchored in old frames to envisage leading the Union. They illustratively talk about « relationships with the EU » whereas they are a member of it. Why then do they not think about their role in the EU as a leader instead of moaning? It truly is a shame as the British way of thinking can offer a constructive alternative to the centralist approach of many continental politicians, the greatest achievement of which being the Euro (and still the latter works as evidenced by German prosperity and its resilience to the Greek tragedy).
Most of the English (not British) political elite like to believe that they are truly superior intellectually, socially, ethnically, economically, historically… to the rest of the World, especially Europe (and the Scots and the Irish). How many, among the Eurosceptics, can claim their scepticism is not driven by any form of xenophobic complex and vested interest to retain political monopoly at all costs? I am always struck by how often nationalist stereotypes play on why the UK should leave the EU. Worse, people do not really know what they are talking about when discussing « Brussels ». Very different concepts (EU, single market, eurozone, eec) are interchangeably used to justify criticisms even when it does not and will not apply to Britain. Prejudiced patriotic thinking prevails over accurate knowledge about what is being discussed. Another illustration of this is the conviction that the EU would give them a good deal if out, simply because the UK runs a trade deficit with the EU: since when one is necessarily the biggest client of its biggest supplier? There is no logical symmetry. My mortgage thus my bank is my biggest expense hence my biggest supplier. Will they run after me with juicy deals if I threaten to leave then? Not quite.
The UK was the first political union of different nations to occur in Europe. It happened in a very centralist way with London concentrating all powers (any devolution lead to independence). Clearly London fears to be the next Edinburgh. Is the UK then unable to understand unions as a collaborative form of national powers? All laws in Brussels are laid out by democratically elected national governments who pre-approve them via the council and their own national institutional systems. Nothing along the lines of the unelected bureaucrats playing God Almighty the English press enjoy portraying. If the EU is so corrupt and sick, why would not the implicitly morally superior UK assert its influence by bettering and leading it?
The UK needs to come to grip with its James Bond fantasy: alone in the world with the U.S. and China. It should stop defining itself by aggressive, contemptuous opposition to its closest continental neighbours, especially France. Pursuing this would only further alienates itself. It needs to face reality. Is really Germany the best ally of the UK in Europe? Would not be France the false outsider therefore the best continental ally to advance reforms? Due to recent history as to the fact that France is Germany’s biggest trading partner ahead of China and the U.S., Germany will be far more reluctant to say no to French demands than to the UK’s. Being the two opposite faces of the same coin, the Anglo-French alliance, however amicale, has always worked better than the Anglo-German axis. Closer family links probably. True, that is a challenge as it means that 1) England should stop seeing its French first degree cousins as the easily blameable enemy and 2) France should stop identifying its English twins as the emmerdeurs de service. Going against the usual odds is the best route to innovations
On a final humorist note, who would the Brits Be able to blame for their own troubles once out of the EU?
En surfant sur le dire Evangelizo, j’ai découvert les intentions mensuelles des prières du Pape Francois. Quelle modernité. Quel sens des réalités.
Je vous en partage quelques unes. Qui osera dire sud l’Eglise est un ramassis de réactionnaires et de vieux misogynes ?
Intentions de Mars 2014:
Universelle – Les droits des femmes
Pour que les droits et la dignité des femmes soient respectés dans toutes les cultures.
Intentions d’Avril 2014:
Universelle – Ecologie et justice
Pour que les gouvernants encouragent le souci de la création
et la distribution équitable des biens et des ressources naturelles.
Pour l’évangélisation – L’espérance des souffrants
Pour que le Seigneur ressuscité comble d’espérance le cœur de ceux qui sont éprouvés par la douleur et par la maladie.
Quel bel exemple à méditer que malheureusement peu de nos gouvernants et dirigeants politiques comme économiques séculiers sont calables d’émuler…
To me it is full of crap except for James Featherby and probably John Kay.
They first oppose finance and the real economy but how can be in there hadn’t the former be part of the latter ?!
All of them were regulatory bureaucrats who did not see anything happening so how can they dare seeking to profit from the situation to expand their grip ! Worse, government cannot take long term visions since it is made of short-term minded politicians who only think in terms of mid-term re-elections !
They fail to see that this crisis is the actual paroxysms of society secularisation exacerbated by relativism
No surprise we got into that mess so easily !
À : ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’
Objet : Conservative Rationalist
Please let me thank you for your comment in today’s FT. Very interesting indeed.
Churchill used to say that people follow leaders but politicians follow people. Therefore, based on your comments, it seems that the Tory institutionalised the latter out of rationalism. Problem is, that entices into populism, which Tory’s Euro-scepticism and same-sex marriage (modernisation issue) embody. This has never ever lead a country to anything good, be it National-liberalism (two antonymic concepts put together) or not . Today the Tories have actually betrayed their free-market economics credo as evidenced by their push for isolationism. Margaret Thatcher, a proud achiever of the Single Market treaty enforced in 1992 (as per which Europeans are granted the right to move freely within the Union alongside capital and goods), became a Eurosceptic because she sought to protect her free-market policies from pervasive, top-down, “socialisant” bureaucrats in Brussels, never ever by any form of belief in isolationism or protectionism, which today’s Tories Eurosceptic adhere to.
As a French entrepreneur who dared walking on Mr Cameron’s red carpet a year ago, I, as many of my peers, feel particularly ostracised by the anti-EU everything rhetoric the Tory party actively contribute to. Such a shame as they are actually jeopardising their chances to a) retain our businesses in the long run since we do not know how geopolitically stable the UK will remain in Europe and b) in the shorter term, win support from those right-leaning entrepreneurial UK-based EU people who are authorised to vote in all local and European elections i.e. the two Tories’ most immediate and biggest electoral challenges … would they win those over Labour (local) and UKIP (European), they would have gained a strong basis to disseminate proper conservative ideology thus to acquire an electoral competitive advantage.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Atlantico – La Quotidienne <mail>
Date: 16 November 2013 08:55:29 GM
Subject: La vertu qui venait du Nord… (ou pas) : les critères au nom desquels Bruxelles contrôle nos budgets
Reply-To: « support support>
La vertu qui venait du Nord… (ou pas) : les critères au nom desquels Bruxelles contrôle nos budgets – La Quotidienne – Atlantico
UK Eurosceptics fail to realise that Britain’s approach to growth reside in tax-dumping within Free trade areas it set up.
#UKIP sadly fails to accept that most of their economy’s funded by foreign capital through FDI and gilts issuance.
As UK sucks most of its capital thru tax dumping, it is quite fair that many immigrants move there #RansomOfSuccess #ukip
London cannot be a prosperous capital of any kind if the UK opts for populist isolationism #ukip
The French have #Hollande & #MarineLePen. The Brits have #UKIP, Eurosceptic @conservatives and #EdMilliband but great entrepreneurial talents from #EU #ThankYou
Average #LittleEnglanders want foreigners’ money for free to pursue an unsustainable, debt-fuelled, property bubble-based lifestyle #WakeUp