NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6607757.stm


US and EU agree 'single market'
Chancellor Angela Merkel and President George Bush
Ms Merkel will soon be Mr Bush's closest ally in the EU
The United States and the European Union have signed up to a new transatlantic economic partnership at a summit in Washington.

The pact is designed to boost trade and investment by harmonising regulatory standards, laying the basis for a US-EU single market.

The two sides also signed an Open Skies deal, designed to reduce fares and boost traffic on transatlantic flights.

But little of substance was agreed on climate change.

However, EU leaders were pleased that the US acknowledged human activity was a major cause.

Richest regions

Economics rather than the environment or politics was the focus of the summit, says the BBC's Europe correspondent, Jonny Dymond, from Washington.

The two sides agreed to set up an "economic council" to push ahead with regulatory convergence in nearly 40 areas, including intellectual property, financial services, business takeovers and the motor industry.


Without the US there can't be any success in coping with a globalised world
European diplomat

Limited hopes for EU-US summit
The aim is to increase trade and lower costs.

Some reports suggest that incompatible regulations in the world's two richest regions add 10% to the cost of developing and producing new cars.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency, said last month that if the US and EU could set business norms today, they would "secure the markets of tomorrow".

Since she came to office 18 months ago, she has made repairing damaged relations with the US a top priority.

Emission cuts

The Europeans said they were pleased that the US now officially acknowledged that climate change was happening and that human activity was a major cause of it.

"We agree there's a threat, there's a very serious global threat," said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

"We agree that there is a need to reduce emissions. We agree that we should work together."

But behind the scenes, says our Europe correspondent, officials were saying that not much had changed.

Ms Merkel will try to nudge the US towards a global approach to climate change before a G8 summit Germany is chairing in six weeks' time, says our correspondent.

But the US has consistently rejected the European approach of imposing national limits on greenhouse gas emissions, saying they would harm the international economy.

Visa hope

The Open Skies agreement will take effect on 30 March 2008 and will allow EU carriers to fly to anywhere in the US and vice versa.

The deal promises to lower airfares and widen choice for passengers on both sides of the Atlantic.

The EU hopes to go further and create an "Open Aviation Area" between the two sides "in which investment can flow freely and in which European and US airlines can provide air services without any restriction," said a EU statement.

The EU is also hoping that the US will agree to withdraw its visa requirement for travellers from a number of EU states.


good news for the economies of the world's richest nations...
but i do worry a tiny bit that this may lead to more 'americanising' of european business practices

does the US have a carbon trading plan in place?

Well I believe the EU has an 80% reduction rate set for 2050 I believe, which would be quite an accomplishment, I fail to see how the US (this administration I am referring to), the greatest contributor to emissions, can really be taken seriously when they are only now reluctantly accepting that it exists. I believe until the neocons and their oil lobbies are gone from Washington, nothing will be done.

Well I believe the EU has an 80% reduction rate set for 2050 I believe, which would be quite an accomplishment, I fail to see how the US (this administration I am referring to), the greatest contributor to emissions, can really be taken seriously when they are only now reluctantly accepting that it exists. I believe until the neocons and their oil lobbies are gone from Washington, nothing will be done.



And enter the conservative bashing!:rolleyes: Why am I not surprised?

Well I believe the EU has an 80% reduction rate set for 2050 I believe, which would be quite an accomplishment, I fail to see how the US (this administration I am referring to), the greatest contributor to emissions, can really be taken seriously when they are only now reluctantly accepting that it exists. I believe until the neocons and their oil lobbies are gone from Washington, nothing will be done.

According to wikipedia, we've got the most successful 'emmissions trading' program going.

Perhaps the most successful emission trading system to date is the SO2 trading system under the framework of the Acid Rain Program of the 1990 Clean Air Act in the USA.

Of course, it's wikipedia, etc. Either way, if we've cut our SO2 emissions in half since 1980, you can't exactly claim that we're "reluctantly" acknowledging anything. The Act hasn't been significantly changed in the past ten years, from what I've heard.

--Edit explained below

And enter the conservative bashing!:rolleyes: Why am I not surprised?

Neocons are not conservatives. Like libertarians are not conservative.

Neocons are not conservatives. Like libertarians are not conservative.

Are you kidding? Most people that use the term don't have any idea what it means.. I'd save my breath, there. "Neocon" is a simple synonym for "bad," to your average internet liberal. ;)

And enter the conservative bashing!:rolleyes: Why am I not surprised?

Since it's impossible to have a discussion related to climate change without bashing the miserable conservative environmental politics.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I would threaten to end all trade with the US if it didn't sign the Kyoto protocol and set up some serious environmental goals. I know this is wishful thinking and it'll never happen but if it did, the politicians in the US would maybe start to think with their brains instead of their wallet. I'm absolutely appalled by the non existing environmental politics of the current US administration since it's the far biggest issue of our time.

I think the EU needs to start truly asserting itself diplomatically in the international arena.

Are you kidding? Most people that use the term don't have any idea what it means.. I'd save my breath, there. "Neocon" is a simple synonym for "bad," to your average internet liberal. ;)

Ouch! You just managed to offend 85.343% of NSG!

Nice one! :)

Ouch! You just managed to offend 85.343% of NSG!

Nice one! :)

Well, I did say "average." Most here are far better informed than the average internet liberal, judging by the other forums I frequent.

But really, even here.. how many know who Irving Kristol is? Most probably know Wolfowitz and maybe Elliot Abrams, but for their recent work, not their ideology.

According to wikipedia, we've got the most successful 'carbon trading' program going.

Of course, it's wikipedia, etc. Either way, if we've cut our SO2 emissions in hald since 1980(...)

*Cough* :p

Well, I did say "average." Most here are far better informed than the average internet liberal, judging by the other forums I frequent.

Now yer giving them a ego boost...never a good thing...anywhere :p

But really, even here.. how many know who Irving Kristol is? Most probably know Wolfowitz and maybe Elliot Abrams, but for their recent work, not their ideology.

To be fair someone did post an article from Fukuyama a while back...

It does still ire me that people think the current administration is in anyway conservatives.

Much cool aid has been quaffed in the last 10 years at least.

*Cough* :p

My mistake.. wiki re-directs "carbon trading" to "emmissions trading," and my brain lagged behind a step. ;)

Substitute: The creation of a market wherein "shares" of emmisions can be traded. We've apparently got a good one.. if it can work for one greenhouse gas, it can work for another, I'd think. Whether there's a similar market for CO2, I have no idea.

And enter the conservative bashing!:rolleyes: Why am I not surprised?

It aint bashing if its true.

It aint bashing if its true.

Which it doesn't seem to be. ;)

That is, the claim that we're only 'now' acknowledging the problem of emmissions. If we've had an SO2 market since '90, that doesn't seem to be the case. Might be true if he'd specified carbon, though I know we've got carbon regulations, if not a market.

EU economie goes up up up US economy goes down down down and within a month the USA comes to the EU looking for an economic safety net.

Bush must've forgotten about his administrations comments towards the EU only a few years ago... What a hypocrite.

Bush must've forgotten about his administrations comments towards the EU only a few years ago... What a hypocrite.

What did he say?

Well the largest nations of Europe were old Europe, unimportant and in danger of no longer being the USA's allies. The EU was an idiot for not blindly following the USA into Iraq, which in the end was a smart call due to US forgery of intelligence.

EU economie goes up up up US economy goes down down down and within a month the USA comes to the EU looking for an economic safety net.

Bush must've forgotten about his administrations comments towards the EU only a few years ago... What a hypocrite.

Right, because growth slowing in the first quarter, largely due to the housing market, is something that can be solved by emissions treaties. That must be Bush's masterplan.

Well the largest nations of Europe were old Europe, unimportant and in danger of no longer being the USA's allies. The EU was an idiot for not blindly following the USA into Iraq, which in the end was a smart call due to US forgery of intelligence.

Sometimes I ask myself if he's psychologically ill.

Right, because growth slowing in the first quarter, largely due to the housing market, is something that can be solved by emissions treaties. That must be Bush's masterplan.

It wont fix it, there was not only talk about emissions, please read it again, the article starts with freer trade and then begins about emissions.

Although on the long term a green economy will benifit the USA, something the EU is far ahead on compared to the rest of the world. Oil is running out, the sooner you switch away from an oil economy the less you will suffer from the effects of running out of oil.

Well the largest nations of Europe were old Europe, unimportant and in danger of no longer being the USA's allies. The EU was an idiot for not blindly following the USA into Iraq, which in the end was a smart call due to US forgery of intelligence.

That was Don Rumsfeld, not Bush. And his remarks (transcript here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Europe) are hardly insulting in context. The second bit is a little vague, but given that much of the EU did participate in the War, and that some of the intelligence used to justify it was European, I doubt he'd make that sort of statement.

Well if you put it in context Rumsfeld at the time speaking for bushes administration still insulted France and Germany for not being the USA's lapdog...
Also the intell was CIA that claimed Iraq had WMD's. France did however warn about 9/11 a month or so before it happened but the USA ignored it.

Well if you put it in context Rumsfeld at the time speaking for bushes administration still insulted France and Germany for not being the USA's lapdog...
Also the intell was CIA that claimed Iraq had WMD's. France did however warn about 9/11 a month or so before it happened but the USA ignored it.

He's still a hypocrite, when he sayed you're with us or against us he should have stuck to that, now hes not only a terrible leader but he also twists.

It wont fix it, there was not only talk about emissions, please read it again, the article starts with freer trade and then begins about emissions.

Although on the long term a green economy will benifit the USA, something the EU is far ahead on compared to the rest of the world. Oil is running out, the sooner you switch away from an oil economy the less you will suffer from the effects of running out of oil.

We'll see whether the housing crisis is a lasting or transitory issue.. all news sources that I can find say last quarter's slowdown was anticipated, and that this quarter is expected to be normal, so we'll know in time. I can't imagine the effect of entering a global emissions trading market being too significant as it affects the economy in general, should that happen.

We'll see whether the housing crisis is a lasting or transitory issue.. all news sources that I can find say last quarter's slowdown was anticipated, and that this quarter is expected to be normal, so we'll know in time. I can't imagine the effect of entering a global emissions trading market being too significant as it affects the economy in general, should that happen.

Economies change all the time, at one time in history no economy relied one bit on oil, we'll have to change either way before it runs out or collapse economically.

Also the US economy was expected to rise 1,8% and only rose 1,3% a major difference of a half percent point...

Well if you put it in context Rumsfeld at the time speaking for bushes administration still insulted France and Germany for not being the USA's lapdog...
Also the intell was CIA that claimed Iraq had WMD's. France did however warn about 9/11 a month or so before it happened but the USA ignored it.

I really don't see how you're reading Rumsfeld's remark as insulting, but that's fine. The interviewer framed the debate as involving France and Germany. Rumsfeld rejected that perspective, clearly, but not because France and Germany are unimportant.. there were 26 or so NATO members at that point, and he apparently saw the "gravity" shifting to the East. Nine members of NATO have joined since 1999. There's no question that the new NATO members are moving that "gravity" as he says, Eastward.

Remember, Rumsfeld's comment was pre-war. Anti-war commentators had a vested interest in reading sarcasm and condescention into an interview where there wasn't any. As for pre-war intel, I don't recall the CIA presenting "all" the intelligence. A good deal of it was from Russian and French intelligence, even if it's been subsequently discredited.

Economies change all the time, at one time in history no economy relied one bit on oil, we'll have to change either way before it runs out or collapse economically.

Also the US economy was expected to rise 1,8% and only rose 1,3% a major difference of a half percent point...

Maybe you can find a source that attributes that drop to emissions, but I can't find any. Housing prices and exports are the problem, by all accounts. There's no basis for attributing the new potential emissions treaty to first quarter growth.

how many know who Irving Kristol is? Most probably know Wolfowitz and maybe Elliot Abrams,

:confused: Never heard of them :D

good news for the economies of the world's richest nations...
AKA, the civilized world where God pays attention.
but i do worry a tiny bit that this may lead to more 'americanising' of european business practices
Well, it's exactly your worrying, Socialist, that makes business in Europe so hard to practice.
If your businesses got a little more American and more power went to the employeer, perhaps you'd see more success, growth and progress, instead of giving power to the worker who brings stagnation, recession, protest and red tape for the companies.

O comon please read my text. I never sayed that the Oil running out in a few decades is responsible for the current US slowdown. All I am saying is: that the EU besides Brazil and other smaller nations, is the only one in the world that is replacing its fossil fuel dependancy for alternative energy sources fast enough to have fully switched to non-fossil fuel energy BEFORE the fossil fuels run out. People Im talking in the long term when Im talking about oil running out.

When we look at what is happening today: 1,8% percent was expected and we got 1,3% which is a significant deviation. And whether or not it was expected, it is still a terrible result. Expecting something bad doesn't make it good just because it was expected.

Well, it's exactly your worrying, Socialist, that makes business in Europe so hard to practice.
If your businesses got a little more American and more power went to the employeer, perhaps you'd see more success, growth and progress, instead of giving power to the worker who brings stagnation, recession, protest and red tape for the companies.

Untrue. The more socialist you get, the more succesful.

I really don't see how you're reading Rumsfeld's remark as insulting, but that's fine. The interviewer framed the debate as involving France and Germany. Rumsfeld rejected that perspective, clearly, but not because France and Germany are unimportant.. there were 26 or so NATO members at that point, and he apparently saw the "gravity" shifting to the East. Nine members of NATO have joined since 1999. There's no question that the new NATO members are moving that "gravity" as he says, Eastward.

Remember, Rumsfeld's comment was pre-war. Anti-war commentators had a vested interest in reading sarcasm and condescention into an interview where there wasn't any. As for pre-war intel, I don't recall the CIA presenting "all" the intelligence. A good deal of it was from Russian and French intelligence, even if it's been subsequently discredited.

O yes? I have heare the word to word transcripts of the event.

Q: Sir, a question about the mood among European allies. You were talking about the Islamic world a second ago. But now the European allies. If you look at, for example, France, Germany, also a lot of people in my own country -- I'm from Dutch public TV, by the way -- it seems that a lot of Europeans rather give the benefit of the doubt to Saddam Hussein than President George Bush. These are U.S. allies. What do you make of that?

Rumsfeld: Well, it's -- what do I make of it?

Q: They have no clerics. They have no Muslim clerics there.

Rumsfeld: Are you helping me? (Laughter.) Do you think I need help? (Laughter.)

What do I think about it? Well, there isn't anyone alive who wouldn't prefer unanimity. I mean, you just always would like everyone to stand up and say, Way to go! That's the right to do, United States.

Now, we rarely find unanimity in the world. I was ambassador to NATO, and I -- when we would go in and make a proposal, there wouldn't be unanimity. There wouldn't even be understanding. And we'd have to be persuasive. We'd have to show reasons. We'd have to -- have to give rationales. We'd have to show facts. And, by golly, I found that Europe on any major issue is given -- if there's leadership and if you're right, and if your facts are persuasive, Europe responds. And they always have.

Now, you're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't. I think that's old Europe. If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the east. And there are a lot of new members. And if you just take the list of all the members of NATO and all of those who have been invited in recently -- what is it? Twenty-six, something like that? -- you're right. Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem.

Q: But opinion polls --

Rumsfeld: But -- just a minute. Just a minute. But you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They're not with France and Germany on this, they're with the United States.

here are just a few more rumsfeld Remarks: (1 untill I find the other)

Craig Smith’s Friday story from Brussels, “NATO Agrees to US Proposals to Revamp Alliance, gets personal in a negative portrayal of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to NATO.

“But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, on his first visit to NATO headquarters since the Iraq war, then annoyed Europeans by effectively threatening to set up NATO headquarters elsewhere if Belgium did not rescind a law that has been used to accuse American officials of war crimes. ‘This law calls into serious question whether NATO can continue to hold meetings in Brussels,’ Mr. Rumsfeld said, adding that the alliance could easily meet elsewhere. ‘Tactless,’ is how one NATO diplomat described Mr. Rumsfeld's remarks at an evening news conference where the defense secretary said the United States would withhold financing for a new NATO headquarters building as long as the law, passed in the mid-1990's, remained on the books.”

Thankfully, the civilized ministers of NATO overlooked Rumsfeld’s crude antics: “Despite Mr. Rumsfeld's behavior, the NATO ministers managed to make striking progress on restructuring the alliance along the lines agreed to during a NATO summit meeting in Prague last year.”

By contrast, Vernon Loeb in the Washington Post manages to set out Rumsfeld’s criticisms without portraying the defense secretary as a bull in a china shop.

For the rest of Craig Smith’s story on Rumsfeld’s visit to NATO, click here.

Well, it's exactly your worrying, Socialist, that makes business in Europe so hard to practice.
If your businesses got a little more American and more power went to the employeer, perhaps you'd see more success, growth and progress, instead of giving power to the worker who brings stagnation, recession, protest and red tape for the companies.

Well actually no, the Average American works about 40 hours and the Average EU citizen works about 30. Indeed the American citizen is then more productive. But as a matter of fact the European productivity per hour level is slightly higher then the American, now that doesnt really matter because the American works longer to compensate for that, and for the economy the end product is what matters. Although it is nice to point out, and on the other hand it is also good for the Economy, because EU companies pay less wage per producivity "unit".

Now to get to the point I really want to make: Sure Americans work longer, great, good for them. But isn't the point of work, to make money so you can enjoy life? If you just work and have no time to enjoy life itself... Then you've become nothing more then that Sci-Fi movie where everyones emotions are turned off and all you live for is sleep and work, sleep and work, sleep and work. Give me a tad less money for a life anyday instead of more money but a far less exciting and meaningfull life.