From today’s Open Europe news summary:
German opposition leader: Merkel entered an “unholy alliance” with Cameron over the EU budget Former French Minister: The Anglo-German axis is an extremely important diplomatic shift In a debate in the German Bundestag this morning, Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Germany has achieved all its goals in the EU budget negotiations, including an overall reduction, warning that she expects difficult negotiations with the European Parliament. SPD’s Chancellor Candidate Peer Steinbrück criticised Merkel for engaging in an “unholy alliance” with the British Prime Minister David Cameron, adding that “if you want more Europe in the future [Germany] needs partners who see its future in Europe.” FDP faction leader Rainer Brüderle hit back at Steinbrück saying that “I am glad that our Chancellor Angela Merkel negotiated [in Brussels] and not Peer Steinbrück who sometimes is described as a diplomatic neutron bomb.”
Meanwhile, Former French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo told French radio RTL yesterday that the prospect of the Franco-German axis in Europe being replaced by an Anglo-German axis “is extremely worrying. This means that we’re probably turning our back on the great European ambitions…This is an extremely important political and diplomatic shift.” ARD Phonix Livestream EUobserver RTL
My question to Herr Steinbruck and M. Borloo is this: What do you mean by “more Europe” and “European ambitions”? If this means more socialism, perhaps Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Cameron have had enough. If the EU’s future is as a transfer union, then I can understand why the transferees would want to participate, but I cannot see the benefit to the transferors. The goal of Europe should be to expand trade and reduce its cost, prevent war, offer greater freedoms, etc. None of these goals can be achieved by expanding the welfare state to include placing entire countries on welfare for unlimited periods of time. Socialism is a failure within a country and will fail as the structure of an international organization, because the beneficiaries of welfare, whether individuals or nations, benefit greatly from their failures and payers benefit hardly at all from their successes. Patrick Barron
