Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
John Titor: Real Time Traveler or a Hoaxer?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Roth Joint" data-source="post: 29048" data-attributes="member: 591"><p><strong>John Titor Debate!</strong></p><p></p><p>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!</p><p> </p><p>JT: "...Western stability, which collapses in 2005." </p><p>"The West will become very unstable..." </p><p>"Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West..."</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/Politics/200505300001" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: #990000">http://www.newstatesman.com/Politics/200505300001</span></strong></a> </p><p> </p><p>Has the EU reached breaking point? </p><p>Leader </p><p>Monday 30th May 2005 </p><p> </p><p>Could the European Union collapse? The question, dismissed a few </p><p>years ago as the stirrings of Europhobic fantasists, is now </p><p>pertinent. National governments across the continent are struggling </p><p>for authority and credibility. Econ-omies are struggling for growth </p><p>and dynamism. The confidence and certainties of the post-Second World </p><p>War settlement are being eroded. The British disease of animosity </p><p>towards European institutions has spread. </p><p> </p><p>The desperate struggle to approve the constitution in countries which </p><p>had been the bedrock of the project is not the cause, but the </p><p>manifestation, of the crisis. The first sign that something was awry </p><p>came in 2001, when Ireland voted No to the Nice Treaty. A country </p><p>which until that point had only benefited from membership gave it a </p><p>resounding thumbs-down. The minutiae of that particular treaty was </p><p>not the issue in that referendum. The Irish simply wanted to make </p><p>their anxiety known, and it was an inchoate list comprising anti- </p><p>foreigner sentiment, opposition to abortion, support for Sinn Fein </p><p>and/or generally giving Bertie Ahern a good kicking. </p><p> </p><p>As Francois Mitterrand remarked: "When a government consults its </p><p>people on a particular question through a referendum, the answer it </p><p>gets is often aimed at a different question." For the French this </p><p>time around - and don't forget how they nearly rejected Maastricht in </p><p>1992 - it is a resistance to the chill winds of globalisation and </p><p>fears of the end of Gallic exceptionalism. For the Dutch, the strains </p><p>over immigration have been evident for some time. The constitutional </p><p>treaty is no panacea. It contains very little that is objectionable, </p><p>but not much more that is commendable. It is essentially an oversize </p><p>(852-page) management manual with a mission statement at the front. </p><p> </p><p>The treaty will, to some degree, streamline the workings of the three </p><p>institutions that comprise the EU - the European Commission, the </p><p>meetings of the member states that are the council, and the </p><p>parliament. It creates an EU foreign minister, a good thing, although </p><p>in Javier Solana the organisation already has one in all but name. It </p><p>is, as the French resistance rightly points out, more of an Anglo- </p><p>Saxon cobble-together than anything the founding fathers would have </p><p>agreed to. </p><p> </p><p>Europe's problems extend far beyond the fate of this document. The </p><p>spectacular rejection of Gerhard Schroder's SPD in state elections in </p><p>Germany attests to discontent with one variant of social democracy. </p><p>The impending demise of Messrs Chirac and Berlusconi suggests that </p><p>centre-right solutions in France and Italy are similarly not finding </p><p>favour. Should that bring a smile to the face of the recently re- </p><p>elected Tony Blair? Hardly. Leaving aside the legitimacy or otherwise </p><p>of his victory, Blair is an equally denuded figure in EU </p><p>chancelleries. Iraq saw to that, more particularly his craven support </p><p>for the Bush administration's attempts to divide Europe into "new" </p><p>and "old". What was done so wantonly will take years of assiduous </p><p>diplomacy to undo. </p><p> </p><p>And yet the task of keeping "Europe" afloat will fall to the very man </p><p>who has failed to reconcile that very project to his own people. </p><p>Britain has played a desultory role in the EU - late in arriving and </p><p>truculent in participating. Blair will assume the EU presidency in </p><p>the summer at the least propitious of moments. The last Blairite </p><p>presidency, in 1998, was long on stunts (speech on platform as </p><p>Eurostar arrives at Waterloo Station, that kind of thing), short on </p><p>substance. This time will have to be different. </p><p> </p><p>What matters is not the fate of constitutions or institutions, but </p><p>providing a means for Europe to thrive, or at least survive, in the </p><p>face of the dual threat of Chinese and Indian economic might and </p><p>American military hubris. There is simply no future for us - the UK, </p><p>France, Germany or any other EU member - in going it alone. </p><p>Integration per se is not the solution. Clever integration, on </p><p>economics, diplomacy and defence, is. </p><p> </p><p>Will Europe's leaders be up to the task? The omens are not good. </p><p>While the French kick up rough over the admission of Turkey, the </p><p>Brits defend their indefensible budget rebate, negotiated 20 years </p><p>ago by Margaret Thatcher and her handbag. Trading it in for some </p><p>serious progress on the Common Agricultural Policy would be a deft </p><p>piece of negotiation. But of course we won't. The shrill cries of </p><p>Euroscepticism have, as ever, intervened. </p><p> </p><p>"Red lines", once the preserve of the UK, are now invoked by all </p><p>governments as they seek to indulge their voters and "get something </p><p>out of Brussels". A mean spirit has taken hold. A club once so </p><p>popular that countries clamoured to join is now having to justify its </p><p>very existence. </p><p> </p><p>Taken from: <a href="http://business.scotsman.com/economy.cfm?id=558622005" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: #990000">http://business.scotsman.com/economy.cfm?id=558622005</span></strong></a></p><p> </p><p>Europe in disarray as Italian economy in crisis </p><p> </p><p>BILL JAMIESON </p><p>Sun 22 May 2005 </p><p> </p><p>AMACABRE competition appears to have broken out across the Continent </p><p>ahead of the French vote on the EU constitution: which of the </p><p>Eurozone's economies are in the deepest trouble and could spark a </p><p>Europe-wide crisis? </p><p> </p><p>Earlier this year it looked as if Germany was the real source of the </p><p>Eurozone's woes. Unemployment climbed to more than five million, and </p><p>even allowing for statistical blips, there is little doubt of a </p><p>widespread lack of confidence among consumers and business. </p><p> </p><p>But the real basket case may be neither Germany nor France. According </p><p>to the Economist it is Italy that is in the deepest trouble. Figures </p><p>earlier this month showed the Italian economy fell back into </p><p>recession in the first quarter of the year. The latest OECD report on </p><p>Italy argues that the country's slow economic growth mainly reflects </p><p>its structural failings. With the traditional option of devaluation </p><p>now closed as Italy is part of the euro bloc, there are growing </p><p>worries of a serious crisis in the public finances as tax revenues </p><p>fall behind. </p><p> </p><p>These outcomes are an appalling advertisement for the agenda of </p><p>integration that drives the EU constitution. Together these three </p><p>economies account for 70% of Eurozone GDP. And the Eurozone continues </p><p>to be the weakest performer in global comparisons of growth...... </p><p> </p><p>Taken from: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1489171,00.html" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: #990000">http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1489171,00.html</span></strong></a> </p><p> </p><p>No votes for Europe's new constitution: </p><p> </p><p>Alarm grows at prospect of French and Dutch no votes </p><p> </p><p>David Gow in Brussels </p><p>Saturday May 21, 2005 </p><p>The Guardian </p><p> </p><p>European Union leaders desperately appealed yesterday for a yes vote </p><p>in the French and Dutch referendums on the new constitution, warning </p><p>that rejection of the treaty in either country would be a "failure for </p><p>Europe" that would set the EU back 20 years. </p><p> </p><p>In London Jos? Manuel Barroso, the European commission president, </p><p>said: "I believe that in case there was a no in either of those </p><p>countries it would be perceived outside of Europe as a failure for </p><p>Europe. People will say: 'Those Europeans cannot even agree about a </p><p>treaty.'"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Roth Joint, post: 29048, member: 591"] [b]John Titor Debate![/b] 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..." [url=http://www.newstatesman.com/Politics/200505300001][b][color=#990000]http://www.newstatesman.com/Politics/200505300001[/color][/b][/url] 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: [url=http://business.scotsman.com/economy.cfm?id=558622005][b][color=#990000]http://business.scotsman.com/economy.cfm?id=558622005[/color][/b][/url] 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: [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1489171,00.html][b][color=#990000]http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1489171,00.html[/color][/b][/url] 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.'" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
John Titor: Real Time Traveler or a Hoaxer?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top