« British Socialism | Main | I Like Him When He's Angry. »

August 29, 2007

Richard Corbett

Richard Corbett MEP puts forward this argument about the European Constitution Reform Treaty.

The social dimension of the reform treaty

The reform treaty will explicitly commit European governments to defend and strengthen the European social model. It will enshrine the values of social justice, full employment and solidarity in the EU's "mission statement" and commit the EU to "a social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress".

Similarly, the treaty emphasises that the EU must work to "combat social exclusion and discrimination", and will be legally required to promote social justice, gender equality and solidarity between generations. It is values such as these that clearly differentiate the EU from the American model of capitalism that allows private wealth and public squalor.

A new protocol will require the EU to safeguard public services, including the way they are organised and financed in each country. The treaty also requires the EU, in all policy areas, to take account of "the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health".

The treaty reaffirms the existing obligation on the commission to "promote the consultation of management and labour at Union level", to "facilitate their dialogue by ensuring balanced support for the parties", and to "consult the social partners before submitting proposals on social policy".

An excellent list of reasons to oppose the whole thing, don't you think?

Unfortunately, this dingbat sees them as reasons to support it.

So, what do you think? Mattocks? A gibbet? Sent to bed without any supper?

August 29, 2007 in European Union | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Richard Corbett:


Send him on a course in plain English and logical thinking. What is 'social protection' when it's at home? He needs to learn that legally imposed 'job security' and 'full employment' (both worthy sounding aims) are to some extent mutually exclusive. And so on.

Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | Aug 29, 2007 12:20:52 PM


That Corbett goon once had the audacity to slag me off on that there blog of his for a Thunderer I wrote.

The pillock.

There's got to be a convincing argument for the treaty than the one he came up with in this article.

Posted by: Peter Briffa | Aug 29, 2007 12:53:23 PM

He comes from Yorkshire, which probably explains much - see the promotional video:

It was doubtless a trifling memory lapse or he would also have recalled the inspiring vision of Phillippe Maystadt, the Belgian finance minister in 1996: “The purpose of the single currency is to prevent the encroachment of Anglo-Saxon values in Europe.”

Posted by: Bob B | Aug 29, 2007 1:33:00 PM

"...differentiate the EU from the American model of capitalism that allows private wealth and public squalor."

"allows"? This won't? Wonderful.

Posted by: MikerinAppalachia | Aug 29, 2007 2:20:06 PM

It will certainly prevent private wealth, I think it will guarantee squalor (as all failure-reward systems do).

Posted by: AntiCitizenOne | Aug 29, 2007 2:26:35 PM

"...differentiate the EU from the American model of capitalism that allows private wealth and public squalor."
Compare and contrast this:

"'In the long run, the Nazis aimed essentially at an economic system which would be an alternative to capitalism and communism, supporting neither a laissez-faire attitude nor total planning.' [ Hardach: The Political Economy of Germany in the Twentieth Century; University of California Press (1980), p 66 ] They introduced administrative controls over investment through licensing and direct allocation of raw materials. But their brand of socialism emphasised central control over economic activity rather than public ownership of firms. Instead of dispossessing private owners, the Nazis severely circumscribed the scope within which the nominal owners could make choices by currency controls, taxes on profits and direct allocation measures of the state."
Peter Temin: Lessons from the Great Depression: The Lionel Robbins Lectures for 1989; MIT Press (1989), p 117.
The author is a professor at the MIT.

Posted by: Bob B | Aug 29, 2007 2:42:48 PM