Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (43057)	5/9/2004 2:11:54 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793754

Red Lines Surprise For Blair EURSOC Two 09 May, 2004 Another headache for Tony Blair: The latest draft of the European Constitution is a lot tougher than he expected. Some of Britain's "red lines" - issues of national importance without which he will not be able to agree to the treaty - look fragile, if not crossed already. The revised draft, released by the Irish government just as Blair headed to Paris to attempt to squeeze more concessions from Jacques Chirac, transfers more power to the European Commission and away from member states. The Telegraph rounds up most of the changes: Among the amendments are moves to greatly strengthen the powers of the proposed EU "foreign minister" - an unelected commissioner - enabling him or her to give orders to the foreign ministers of member countries, including (Britain's foreign secretary) Jack Straw, and to control the EU corps of diplomats. The ability of Britain and other member states to veto the appointment of the president and vice-president of the European Central Bank also comes under renewed threat, as does the independence of the bank itself. The powers of the European Parliament in rejecting the Commission's budget - itself a contentious issue - would be greatly increased and there are even possible threats to Britain's right to levy taxes independently. More decisions across a range of areas should, according to the proposed amendments, be taken by qualified majority voting, effectively removing the ability of Britain and other countries to wield a veto. The draft treaty will be discussed by foreign ministers in the next couple of weeks - any unfinished business will be discussed at a summit in June, though Britain says it will not stick to the deadline if its red lines are not protected. The Prime Minister has warned that he can only sell the constitution to British voters if red lines protecting areas of taxation, foreign policy, defence, criminal law and social policy are secure. If he is unable to retain Britain's veto in these areas, he will not be able to sign the treaty, never mind try to sell it to an already sceptical British public. No agreement, no constitution, no referendum. Blair's team felt certain that Britain's position was safe. The PM had won an agreement at the previous Constitution summit protecting the red lines. Nevertheless, federalists fumed that nothing was safe when the treaty was negotiated again. It seems they have been true to their word: Blair's job just got harder. If - and it looks like a big if - Britain ever reaches the stage of holding a referendum, it should hold a joint vote on membership of the single currency at the same time, says cabinet minister Charles Clarke. Clarke is the government's most fervent Eurofanatic. Along with a handful of other ministers, has called on Blair to hold two referenda on the same day. It might be an apocalyptic day for Eurofanatics but it is unlikely to happen: Blair's policy on Euro-entry, fiercely guarded by chancellor Gordon Brown, is to wait until "five tests" measuring convergence between Britain's and Europe's economies are met. As these five tests are far from being met, Blair would not risk angering his finance minister further by depriving him of his brake on Euro-integration. Looks like Eurofanatics will have two, rather than just one miserable day to look forward to.

To: LindyBill who wrote (43057)	5/9/2004 2:48:05 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793754

Its main themes closely parallel the arguments I have been making over and over again, most recently two weeks ago, that "The U.S. goal cannot be a free Iraq, but an Iraq that does not endanger America." I just shake my head over these folks. Where was he back a couple of years ago when Iraq was still a negligible danger to the US and so many were urging that we not open up that can of worms? Filled with righteousness or the heady scent of gunpowder or nightmares about bogeymen? Sheesh!