Re: Gelles/ EMU/Popularism

[Bernard Girard <bgirard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

tmurphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Instead of interpreting the EMU as a neo-liberal frabrication, I urge
> understanding of the complexity of the effort. EMU is not neo-liberalism
> run riot. EMU guarantees what John sees as threatened. That alone
> explains why the UK backed away and opted out. We call the social
> security and social guarantees by a special name--les acquis
> communitaries.

No, Terence, no. You should read what the Commission is now writing on social security.
The neo-liberal model is everywhere. In fact, I come to think that post Maastricht
Europe will do to our social model what the post Traité de Rome's Europe did to the
protectionism : it will destroy it.
Just two instances :
- every one in Bruxelles talks about a "revenu social minimum", a kind of salary that
everyone above 18 would receive. The idea, not far for some of Friedman's, would pave
the way to the privatization of most of what we call social security (health, rents for
old persons...) and the introduction of pension funds ;
- every one in Bruxelles uses the word "employabilité" and wants the unemployement
insurance to be linked with this "employabilité" which would mean that those who are not
"employables" would not get any insurance when unemployed.
Some of these ideas might be good (pension funds, for instance), the trouble is that
nobody in Europe, but those who work for Bruxelles or with Bruxelles, know what's
happening. And one day one of our governments will come and tell us, la queue entre les
jambes : "sorry, but we have to change all that because of Bruxelles."

>     Our problem is policy mix. This ambiguity escapes ideoloques and
> calls for pragmatic solution. The French and Italian examples are praise
> worthy and merit attention and support.
>
>     John comes to the heart to the matter. In France, the extreme left
> (Pierre Bourdieu sells 300,000 of his short essays) and the extreme right
> have a common cause. They are opposed to Europe, to progressive ideas.
> What they want in common is chaos. The left. because it proves they were
> right; the right because they seek power.
>
>      What John rightly identifies, just as JMK would have identified, is
> the threat of economic and social instablilty in Middle Europe.
>
>    This is not an academic issue about regulation or deregulation.
>
>     The working class in France votes neofascist. Le Pen's daughter also
> won in a working class district north of Paris.
>
>      Until the academics understand the challenge, drop the ideological
> cover, and join in the struggle for culture, we are into the wall.
>
>      That John tagged his piece, the containment of Germany intrigues me.
>  I would suggest another title: the containment of popularism.
> Nevertheless, I agree with John as opposed to his critic that popularism
> in Germany is an important threat to stability in middle Europe.
>
>     Listening to the Whit Sunday rituals of the CSU in Munich is
> unsettling. Listening to recently elected prime minister of Hungary is
> disquieting. Take note of the SDP refusal of Polish workers in Germany.
> Take note of the adds in Danmark in the recent campaign over the
> referredum on the Treaty of Amsterdam.  (Welcome 30 million polls) Racism
> threatens Europe. That's not a comfortable fit with economic theory. But
> it is a reality.
>
>     Rather than apologizing, I would urge John and other participants to
> reflect on how we integrate nationalism, security issues , and
> macro-economics into the a progressive understanding of Europe.
>
> Terence Murphy
>
>

--
-----
Bernard Girard