Roth Joint
Junior Member
- Messages
- 43
John Titor Debate!
It seems that one of John Titor's strongest "predictions" is about to come true: the collapse of Western stability, the coming crisis for Europe... in 2005!
JT: "...Western stability, which collapses in 2005."
"The West will become very unstable..."
"Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West..."
http://www.newstatesman.com/Politics/200505300001
Has the EU reached breaking point?
Leader
Monday 30th May 2005
Could the European Union collapse? The question, dismissed a few
years ago as the stirrings of Europhobic fantasists, is now
pertinent. National governments across the continent are struggling
for authority and credibility. Econ-omies are struggling for growth
and dynamism. The confidence and certainties of the post-Second World
War settlement are being eroded. The British disease of animosity
towards European institutions has spread.
The desperate struggle to approve the constitution in countries which
had been the bedrock of the project is not the cause, but the
manifestation, of the crisis. The first sign that something was awry
came in 2001, when Ireland voted No to the Nice Treaty. A country
which until that point had only benefited from membership gave it a
resounding thumbs-down. The minutiae of that particular treaty was
not the issue in that referendum. The Irish simply wanted to make
their anxiety known, and it was an inchoate list comprising anti-
foreigner sentiment, opposition to abortion, support for Sinn Fein
and/or generally giving Bertie Ahern a good kicking.
As Francois Mitterrand remarked: "When a government consults its
people on a particular question through a referendum, the answer it
gets is often aimed at a different question." For the French this
time around - and don't forget how they nearly rejected Maastricht in
1992 - it is a resistance to the chill winds of globalisation and
fears of the end of Gallic exceptionalism. For the Dutch, the strains
over immigration have been evident for some time. The constitutional
treaty is no panacea. It contains very little that is objectionable,
but not much more that is commendable. It is essentially an oversize
(852-page) management manual with a mission statement at the front.
The treaty will, to some degree, streamline the workings of the three
institutions that comprise the EU - the European Commission, the
meetings of the member states that are the council, and the
parliament. It creates an EU foreign minister, a good thing, although
in Javier Solana the organisation already has one in all but name. It
is, as the French resistance rightly points out, more of an Anglo-
Saxon cobble-together than anything the founding fathers would have
agreed to.
Europe's problems extend far beyond the fate of this document. The
spectacular rejection of Gerhard Schroder's SPD in state elections in
Germany attests to discontent with one variant of social democracy.
The impending demise of Messrs Chirac and Berlusconi suggests that
centre-right solutions in France and Italy are similarly not finding
favour. Should that bring a smile to the face of the recently re-
elected Tony Blair? Hardly. Leaving aside the legitimacy or otherwise
of his victory, Blair is an equally denuded figure in EU
chancelleries. Iraq saw to that, more particularly his craven support
for the Bush administration's attempts to divide Europe into "new"
and "old". What was done so wantonly will take years of assiduous
diplomacy to undo.
And yet the task of keeping "Europe" afloat will fall to the very man
who has failed to reconcile that very project to his own people.
Britain has played a desultory role in the EU - late in arriving and
truculent in participating. Blair will assume the EU presidency in
the summer at the least propitious of moments. The last Blairite
presidency, in 1998, was long on stunts (speech on platform as
Eurostar arrives at Waterloo Station, that kind of thing), short on
substance. This time will have to be different.
What matters is not the fate of constitutions or institutions, but
providing a means for Europe to thrive, or at least survive, in the
face of the dual threat of Chinese and Indian economic might and
American military hubris. There is simply no future for us - the UK,
France, Germany or any other EU member - in going it alone.
Integration per se is not the solution. Clever integration, on
economics, diplomacy and defence, is.
Will Europe's leaders be up to the task? The omens are not good.
While the French kick up rough over the admission of Turkey, the
Brits defend their indefensible budget rebate, negotiated 20 years
ago by Margaret Thatcher and her handbag. Trading it in for some
serious progress on the Common Agricultural Policy would be a deft
piece of negotiation. But of course we won't. The shrill cries of
Euroscepticism have, as ever, intervened.
"Red lines", once the preserve of the UK, are now invoked by all
governments as they seek to indulge their voters and "get something
out of Brussels". A mean spirit has taken hold. A club once so
popular that countries clamoured to join is now having to justify its
very existence.
Taken from: http://business.scotsman.com/economy.cfm?id=558622005
Europe in disarray as Italian economy in crisis
BILL JAMIESON
Sun 22 May 2005
AMACABRE competition appears to have broken out across the Continent
ahead of the French vote on the EU constitution: which of the
Eurozone's economies are in the deepest trouble and could spark a
Europe-wide crisis?
Earlier this year it looked as if Germany was the real source of the
Eurozone's woes. Unemployment climbed to more than five million, and
even allowing for statistical blips, there is little doubt of a
widespread lack of confidence among consumers and business.
But the real basket case may be neither Germany nor France. According
to the Economist it is Italy that is in the deepest trouble. Figures
earlier this month showed the Italian economy fell back into
recession in the first quarter of the year. The latest OECD report on
Italy argues that the country's slow economic growth mainly reflects
its structural failings. With the traditional option of devaluation
now closed as Italy is part of the euro bloc, there are growing
worries of a serious crisis in the public finances as tax revenues
fall behind.
These outcomes are an appalling advertisement for the agenda of
integration that drives the EU constitution. Together these three
economies account for 70% of Eurozone GDP. And the Eurozone continues
to be the weakest performer in global comparisons of growth......
Taken from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1489171,00.html
No votes for Europe's new constitution:
Alarm grows at prospect of French and Dutch no votes
David Gow in Brussels
Saturday May 21, 2005
The Guardian
European Union leaders desperately appealed yesterday for a yes vote
in the French and Dutch referendums on the new constitution, warning
that rejection of the treaty in either country would be a "failure for
Europe" that would set the EU back 20 years.
In London Jos? Manuel Barroso, the European commission president,
said: "I believe that in case there was a no in either of those
countries it would be perceived outside of Europe as a failure for
Europe. People will say: 'Those Europeans cannot even agree about a
treaty.'"
It seems that one of John Titor's strongest "predictions" is about to come true: the collapse of Western stability, the coming crisis for Europe... in 2005!
JT: "...Western stability, which collapses in 2005."
"The West will become very unstable..."
"Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West..."
http://www.newstatesman.com/Politics/200505300001
Has the EU reached breaking point?
Leader
Monday 30th May 2005
Could the European Union collapse? The question, dismissed a few
years ago as the stirrings of Europhobic fantasists, is now
pertinent. National governments across the continent are struggling
for authority and credibility. Econ-omies are struggling for growth
and dynamism. The confidence and certainties of the post-Second World
War settlement are being eroded. The British disease of animosity
towards European institutions has spread.
The desperate struggle to approve the constitution in countries which
had been the bedrock of the project is not the cause, but the
manifestation, of the crisis. The first sign that something was awry
came in 2001, when Ireland voted No to the Nice Treaty. A country
which until that point had only benefited from membership gave it a
resounding thumbs-down. The minutiae of that particular treaty was
not the issue in that referendum. The Irish simply wanted to make
their anxiety known, and it was an inchoate list comprising anti-
foreigner sentiment, opposition to abortion, support for Sinn Fein
and/or generally giving Bertie Ahern a good kicking.
As Francois Mitterrand remarked: "When a government consults its
people on a particular question through a referendum, the answer it
gets is often aimed at a different question." For the French this
time around - and don't forget how they nearly rejected Maastricht in
1992 - it is a resistance to the chill winds of globalisation and
fears of the end of Gallic exceptionalism. For the Dutch, the strains
over immigration have been evident for some time. The constitutional
treaty is no panacea. It contains very little that is objectionable,
but not much more that is commendable. It is essentially an oversize
(852-page) management manual with a mission statement at the front.
The treaty will, to some degree, streamline the workings of the three
institutions that comprise the EU - the European Commission, the
meetings of the member states that are the council, and the
parliament. It creates an EU foreign minister, a good thing, although
in Javier Solana the organisation already has one in all but name. It
is, as the French resistance rightly points out, more of an Anglo-
Saxon cobble-together than anything the founding fathers would have
agreed to.
Europe's problems extend far beyond the fate of this document. The
spectacular rejection of Gerhard Schroder's SPD in state elections in
Germany attests to discontent with one variant of social democracy.
The impending demise of Messrs Chirac and Berlusconi suggests that
centre-right solutions in France and Italy are similarly not finding
favour. Should that bring a smile to the face of the recently re-
elected Tony Blair? Hardly. Leaving aside the legitimacy or otherwise
of his victory, Blair is an equally denuded figure in EU
chancelleries. Iraq saw to that, more particularly his craven support
for the Bush administration's attempts to divide Europe into "new"
and "old". What was done so wantonly will take years of assiduous
diplomacy to undo.
And yet the task of keeping "Europe" afloat will fall to the very man
who has failed to reconcile that very project to his own people.
Britain has played a desultory role in the EU - late in arriving and
truculent in participating. Blair will assume the EU presidency in
the summer at the least propitious of moments. The last Blairite
presidency, in 1998, was long on stunts (speech on platform as
Eurostar arrives at Waterloo Station, that kind of thing), short on
substance. This time will have to be different.
What matters is not the fate of constitutions or institutions, but
providing a means for Europe to thrive, or at least survive, in the
face of the dual threat of Chinese and Indian economic might and
American military hubris. There is simply no future for us - the UK,
France, Germany or any other EU member - in going it alone.
Integration per se is not the solution. Clever integration, on
economics, diplomacy and defence, is.
Will Europe's leaders be up to the task? The omens are not good.
While the French kick up rough over the admission of Turkey, the
Brits defend their indefensible budget rebate, negotiated 20 years
ago by Margaret Thatcher and her handbag. Trading it in for some
serious progress on the Common Agricultural Policy would be a deft
piece of negotiation. But of course we won't. The shrill cries of
Euroscepticism have, as ever, intervened.
"Red lines", once the preserve of the UK, are now invoked by all
governments as they seek to indulge their voters and "get something
out of Brussels". A mean spirit has taken hold. A club once so
popular that countries clamoured to join is now having to justify its
very existence.
Taken from: http://business.scotsman.com/economy.cfm?id=558622005
Europe in disarray as Italian economy in crisis
BILL JAMIESON
Sun 22 May 2005
AMACABRE competition appears to have broken out across the Continent
ahead of the French vote on the EU constitution: which of the
Eurozone's economies are in the deepest trouble and could spark a
Europe-wide crisis?
Earlier this year it looked as if Germany was the real source of the
Eurozone's woes. Unemployment climbed to more than five million, and
even allowing for statistical blips, there is little doubt of a
widespread lack of confidence among consumers and business.
But the real basket case may be neither Germany nor France. According
to the Economist it is Italy that is in the deepest trouble. Figures
earlier this month showed the Italian economy fell back into
recession in the first quarter of the year. The latest OECD report on
Italy argues that the country's slow economic growth mainly reflects
its structural failings. With the traditional option of devaluation
now closed as Italy is part of the euro bloc, there are growing
worries of a serious crisis in the public finances as tax revenues
fall behind.
These outcomes are an appalling advertisement for the agenda of
integration that drives the EU constitution. Together these three
economies account for 70% of Eurozone GDP. And the Eurozone continues
to be the weakest performer in global comparisons of growth......
Taken from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1489171,00.html
No votes for Europe's new constitution:
Alarm grows at prospect of French and Dutch no votes
David Gow in Brussels
Saturday May 21, 2005
The Guardian
European Union leaders desperately appealed yesterday for a yes vote
in the French and Dutch referendums on the new constitution, warning
that rejection of the treaty in either country would be a "failure for
Europe" that would set the EU back 20 years.
In London Jos? Manuel Barroso, the European commission president,
said: "I believe that in case there was a no in either of those
countries it would be perceived outside of Europe as a failure for
Europe. People will say: 'Those Europeans cannot even agree about a
treaty.'"