[freddie]

Originally Posted by haku

I think many former communist countries have "thrown the baby with the bath water" as we say in French, many are now engaged on an ultra-capitalistic road where everything must be private and competition absolute. Good for them, but i don't agree with that socio-economic model based on the American one.

For me "public service" is not an insult or an archaism, offering an equal and affordable service to everybody whether they live in a large city or a small town is something Europe should strive for. I don't believe that competition and profits always make things better (Paris subway is not profitable and never will be, and yet it's a great public service that nobody would want to see closed because it's not profitable), and i certainly don't believe that competition is the best answer to everything.

Mail delivery. You can't have several post offices owned by different companies in every city, town and village. You can't have several mailmen competing every morning to deliver mail in your mailbox. Mail delivery is for me an area where a public service is logical and more efficent.

Electricity. Look at California, electricity production is completely private there and competition has led to a total lack of investment and long term planning, resulting in a worn-out network and frequent blackouts (to the point that many businesses have built their own in-house power generators, which is an environmental nightmare).
In France, the state-owned EDF has been able to plan over decades and has built an efficient modern network, and electricity is cheaper than in most neighboring countries. Also, i support nuclear energy because i think it's a good way to limit global warming, but i wouldn't want private nuclear plants.

Railroad. Look at Britain and its completely private railroad, it's a total disaster, private companies have been solely focused on maximizing profits, the result is a decaying network with no long-term investment and planning. The only high speed lane has been built because of the Channel tunnel and it has taken *15 years* to build only *120km* of tracks between the tunnel and London.
In France, the state-owned SNCF has built close to 2000km of high speed lanes in 25 years and we have now high speed trains linking all major cities. If the French railroad had been privatized like in Britain, we wouldn't have a high speed network today.

I do support full competition in most areas (i'm against public funding of French cinema for example, if it's not good enough to compete, then it should disappear), but there are a few areas that require long-term planning and don't generate immediate profits even though it's useful to millions of people (like a high speed rail network or an electricity grid) and private companies are simply not interested in doing things that would benefit millions of people if it doesn't generate immediately huge profits for their shareholders.

But see I'm not saying private companies should automatically exclude government interventionism in general. Not when it comes to fiddling with the prices but rather ensuring quality of service (massively important in transport safety). But I still think most fears of private companies only being interested in profits is redundant - as long as there's competition people can CHOOSE. And if they don't like the quality of service they can easily go elsewhere. California example is exactly the opposite: it's a case of a dominant provider with no competition - and partly also a consequence of Enron faul business tactics. And the British railroads in general have loads of other - bigger - problems than them being privatized.

Originally Posted by haku

Maybe Britain, but don't be so sure about France (and a European federation could start with half a dozen states, so the usual brooding of Britain is not a problem).

Segolene Royal's program includes the "creation of a European government for the eurozone states"

Nicholas Sarkozy's program includes the "creation of a European president and foreign affairs minister" and the "development of a European defense"

Furthermore, right or left, the main French parties have already mentioned that eventually:
The EU should have a permanent seat at the UN instead of France
The French nuclear arsenal should be transfered to a European defense

Those are all noble ideas and I'll be the first one to stand up in applause if they come true. There's just so many diplomatic obstacles to tackle before it can come to fruition. We're talking about a country who said no to the European Constitution on a referendum. A country where many politicians still score points on blatant nationalism. And it's not like France is an isolated case.
If anything I think the political unification might be slightly easier to achieve at first. Compromising over military matters is always the most sensitive issue.