European Politics Thread.

[Donnervogel 0]

Conclusion: This constitution provides no more democracy, no common policy and prefers economy over social rights.

Of course it prefers economy over social rights for reasons that were stated many times already. You seem to overrate this constitutions in some areas. This is a threaty for the mainly economical european union. It is not the new constitution for a nation. But your basic social rights and your social system are staed in your national constitution and law that will continue to be in effect. there is no reason to fear that your german social system will be disbanded because of the EU constitution. That will only happen if it is disbanded on the national level by your politicians that you can elect.

It's necessary to see that this EU constitution is not responsible for how far your national politics want to go in certain areas. It does not limit them to extend their social network. It only limits them in the other direction. They can not disband the complete social system because the EU constitution commits them to provide a minimal social support. But that's all it says. And it doesn't say more because some member can't or don't want to provide more social support. But that's a matter of national politics and there you can have your voice in parlimentatry elections if you disagree.

Also you are wrong about the democary. Of course the EU remains to be quite a bureaucracy and still needs democratic reforms even with the constitution but the constitution does make it more democratic. It does increase the power of the parliament. The european parilament will remain to be less powerful than national parliaments but it certainly gets more powers compared to the current situation.

You should read this: Verfassung: Europa wagt mehr Demokratie - in German

and this: Die EU-Verfassung im Vergleich zum Vertrag von Nizza - German

sorry for english speaking guys. It's quite complicated for me to write the stuff in english. I'll try to give some examples:

- The European parliament will have an the power of veto on all decisions involving (qualified) majority voting

- The European parliament will also elect the President of the European Commission

- A new intervention power for national parliaments. If one third of national parliaments think that a legal reform would be better carried out at a national level, the European Commission has to review the proposal.

I think this is not enough. I demand more democarcy of course. But this is a step into the right direction. And you can't have too much changes overnight. You need to apprach this step by step.

I also think many people misunderstand the term constitution a bit. Only because it's called constitution it doesn't mean it's a sacred piece of writing that will stay the same forever and will never get changed. This is only another threaty and it will get changed in the future. One has to learn that with the EU you have to go step by step and make many compromises to eventually archieve something big and good. You simply can't rush forward and implement the constitution you would personally like form one day to another. There are too many different opinions around. If you make it more social you'll piss off some people. If you make it more liberal you piss off others. SO you need to go forward in little steps giving each party a bit of the stuff it wants and in return each party has to allow some stuff it doesn't want. The EU needs to grow and in my opinion this constitution was one of the best steps forward in a long time. Although it's far from perfect and it won't make the EU as I want it to be. Still it would have been better than the mess of the Nice threaty that is clumsy and outdated anyway with the extended EU of 25 members and desperatly needs changing.

Well I am confident that changes to that situation will follow quickly. But I am afraid we'll get all the changes that don't help the EU citizens much but that the comissions and the council desire. And nobody will be able to influence that much. We'll have to take what they decide.

With the constitution we had at least got some new instruments that help the normal citizens. We would also have got some things we don't like. But it's better than getting only stuff we don't like. You have to realise that with the Nice threaty the EU leadership has much more powers to implement laws and for us it's not really possible to do anything against it.

[denoir 0]

The problem with the commission is that it is government appointed. You have a serious conflict of interest there. The national governments are trying to protect their influence, while they're tasked with defining a pan-European system.

People are incorrectly shifting the blame to Brussels. That's not where the problem is. On the contrary, there's the most positive part of the European Union - the European Parliament. The "bad guys" in all of this are the national governments who are trying to enforce a system where they will keep considerable power. And that's the Council and the Commission.

A good example of that was when the EP rejected Barroso's choice of commissioner for law and justice. There was a cry of outrage around the governments of Europe. I remember the Swedish PM saying that this was not the way it was supposed to be, that it was a dire development when the European Parliament started to decide the fate of individual commissioners. Incidentally, the public support was not surprisingly on the side of the Parliament.

Unfortunately, the ultimate power is with the national governments, and they're looking out for their own immediate interests, rather than the interest of the Europeans. It's however not all that simple. In many countries, especially Britain, high demands are put on the government to protect national interests within the EU. So it's a bit of a shitty situation either way. You can either trust that your country's interests are protected at an European level ( which for those things doesn't exist today anyway), or you have to trust your national representatives - in two cycles. You elect people that elect people. Apparently, two-staged representative democracy doesn't work to well. Or at least people do not feel it to be very democratic.

So people expect their governments to protect their national interests, but get pissed off when it gets fucked results on the EU level.

That's why I think this has to be taken step by step. We have to have a European layer of politics before we can fully operate as a Union. And this needs to be built up by countries looking out for their own good. Ultimately, and we're clearly seeing a trend here, they will come to a realization that what is good for one country is in most cases good for the rest. With that insight and with gradually built-up trust, we can start fully operate things on the EU level. And that is when you're going to get a nice and coherent constitution.

[Donnervogel 0]

People are incorrectly shifting the blame to Brussels.

It's not only the normal people. It's also often the governments. They use it as an excuse. They say it was decided in Brussels (meaning it was decided by them mostly) and they can't do anything about it in order not to be blamed for trouble in their own countries. That's also something that leads to the people being very sceptical about the EU: Because everytime they hear something about Brussels it's that Brussels decided something that limits them. When Brussel gives them more freedom, better economy or less customs then it's the archievement of the national government of course. And such behaviour is going to pay back. As we can partially see now in those referendums.

[denoir 0]

Indeed. There is a nasty trend of national politicians taking credit for everything the good EU brings, while blaming the EU for everything wrong that happens. I guess that's unavoidable as politicians need to be re-elected.

[Apollo 0]

Jim Hacker: "The trouble with Brussels is not internationalism, it is too much bureaucracy."

Sir Humphrey: "But the bureaucracy is a consequence of the internationalism. Why else would there be an English Commissioner with a French Director-General immediately below him, and an Italian Chef-du-Division reporting to the Frenchman and so on down the line."

Jim Hacker: "Oh, I agree."

Sir Humphrey: "It is like the Tower of Babel."

Jim Hacker: "I agree."

Sir Humphrey: "No, it's even worse, it is like the United Nations."

Jim Hacker: "I agree."

Bernard Woolley: "Then perhaps, if I may interject, you are in fact in agreement."

Jim Hacker & Sir Humphrey: "No we're not!"

Jim Hacker: "Europe is a community of nations, dedicated towards one goal."

Sir Humphrey: "Oh, ha ha ha."

Jim Hacker: "May we share the joke, Humphrey?"

Sir Humphrey: "Oh Minister, let's look at this objectively. It's a game played for national interests, it always was. Why do you suppose we went into it?"

Jim Hacker: "To strengthen the brotherhood of Free Western nations."

Sir Humphrey: "Oh really. We went in to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans."

Jim Hacker: "So why did the French go into it then?"

Sir Humphrey: "Well, to protect their inefficient farmers from commercial competition."

Jim Hacker: "That certainly doesn't apply to the Germans."

Sir Humphrey: "No no, they went in to cleanse themselves of genocide and apply for readmission to the human race."

Jim Hacker: "I never heard such appalling cynicism. At least the small nations didn't go into it for selfish reasons."

Sir Humphrey: "Oh really? Luxembourg is in it for the perks; the capital of the EEC, all that foreign money pouring in."

Jim Hacker: "Very sensible central location."

Sir Humphrey: "With the administration in Brussels and the Parliament in Strasbourg? Minister, it's like having the House of Commons in Swindon and the Civil Service in Kettering."

Aired 23 March 1981 ,damn Brittish cynism

[Necromancer- 0]

Indeed. There is a nasty trend of national politicians taking credit for everything the good EU brings, while blaming the EU for everything wrong that happens. I guess that's unavoidable as politicians need to be re-elected.

Hmmn...

I haven't noticed those aspects of the politicians here in The Netherlands...

or may be I'm too blind.

[Donnervogel 0]

Indeed. There is a nasty trend of national politicians taking credit for everything the good EU brings, while blaming the EU for everything wrong that happens. I guess that's unavoidable as politicians need to be re-elected.

Hmmn...

I haven't noticed those aspects of the politicians here in The Netherlands...

or may be I'm too blind.

Taht's the point. You don't notice it because they don't tell you it's the EU that made it but they just say "yay we have 2% growth - our reform are successful" or something similar.

[denoir 0]

Aired 23 March 1981 ,damn Brittish cynism

I saw an interesting interview on BBC after the French referendum. It was with some British guy who had been working with European integration for a couple of decades.

He claimed that to start with the European Community was in practice basically a scheme for France to get loads of money from Germany . The Commission back then was completely French dominated. The only official language of the EC was French and all the important posts were held by Frenchmen. Germany was a willing participant due to its bad conscience for WW2. France was getting fairly rich off the strong German industry, while it found a leadership role for itself in post-colonial times.

Because of the latter point, the Community was into expansion - largely seen by France as a way to extend its influence. It did however turn out a bit differently. The EEC was a large economic success on its own, due to the common market rules. It did attract other European countries, but they weren't quite willing to just hand all power to France. So power was more and more shared.

So, the article argued, it's not really surprising that scepticism towards the EU has increased over the years. As it turns out, it didn't become a French led project - so a lot of people are disappointed.

It's a bit of a cynical view, but I think that there is some truth to it. With the expansion France has definitely lost a significant amount of power. It used to be France, Germany and Britain that dominated the Union, with Germany in most cases just following France. Now you have large countries like Poland, having a strong voice. The smaller nations also have a stronger influence - and this would have been especially true had the constitution passed. With the Nice agreement, the large countries can still get away with some very questionable things, simply because of their size (like ignoring the rules set for the stability pact).

Ironically, this is where the Dutch shot themselves in the foot. As long as Nice stands, smaller countries like the Netherlands will be the whipping boys of the large countries. The constitution would have effectively put a stop to that because of the changed voting and decision rules (i.e the qualified majority voting system).

France however might not get its way anyhow. While killing off the constitution might create some delays and raise questions about the direction of the Union, it is unlikely that things will change to increase France's influence. This especially since the French government has been beat up and dragged in the mud. At the European level, France will be blamed for the failure of the constitution, which will further only decrease its influence. It looks even like Germany might get a political will of its own after this.

[der bastler 0]

I also think many people misunderstand the term constitution a bit. Only because it's called constitution it doesn't mean it's a sacred piece of writing that will stay the same forever and will never get changed. This is only another threaty and it will get changed in the future.

Well, read the Preamble and then tell me again that this constitution is just another treaty. And please remember what "Verfassungsrang" means.

there is no reason to fear that your german social system will be disbanded because of the EU constitution. That will only happen if it is disbanded on the national level by your politicians that you can elect.

This constitution sets limits for social topics, but apparently unlimits economic rights. Consumer protection is included but remains fuzzy -- in a paper that otherwise uses verbalisations in lawyer-speak!

http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone04262005.html

Quote[/b] ]As luck would have it, just as the pre-referendum campaign was getting underway, public attention was drawn to a draft Directive on liberalization of services that perfectly illustrated the implications of the "internal market where competition is free and undistorted" (Article I-3). Known by the name of its author, EU Commissioner Frits Bolkestein, a former head of Shell Oil and a right-wing Dutch political leader, it soon won the nickname of the "Frankenstein directive". The main feature of this proposed legislation is the "principle of origin". Services sold abroad would submit to the rules of their country of origin. This means that companies in France or Germany, for instance, could hire services from Poland or Slovakia under the lower wage and looser professional standards of the "country of origin".

The "social Europe" promised by politicians for years would mean harmonizing social standards upwards, eventually aligning all Member States with those having the highest levels of worker protection, wages and benefits. The United Kingdom -- whether Labor or the Conservatives -- has persistently blocked all such attempts. Now, the Bolkestein directive makes it quite clear that the thrust is toward bringing standards down to the lowest levels.

This would wipe out the social gains of over a century in countries such as France, Germany and Belgium. It would also imperil France's public services, by forcing them to compete with cheaper offerings from poorer countries, outside French regulations.

See also: http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb5/frieden/themen/Europa/duchrow.html (German)

You should read this: Verfassung: Europa wagt mehr Demokratie - in German

I did. It talks about more topics the parliament can participate in. But it doesn't state any changes of current procedures.

Quote[/b] ]- The European parliament will have an the power of veto on all decisions involving (qualified) majority voting

Legislative acts are proposed by the Commission alone. Please read Art.III-396. And then compare it to the procedure used today.

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/60169 (German)

"Council wants to bypass parliament"

This bypass is also possible with the constitution:

http://www.europarl.eu.int/code/information/guide_de.pdf (German)

Quote[/b] ]The new text of the constitution (article III-396), which replaces the current article 251 of the Treaty of Rome, doesn't hold any important changes of the procedure, except it received better structure and readability. The word "opinion" was exhanged with "position". This way an equalisation between first reading of the council and first reading of the parliament shall be achieved.

- The European parliament will also elect the President of the European Commission

It will only elect who was proposed by the Council (Art.II-27.1).

[denoir 0]

Are you serious? Have you taken a look at the Nice treaty? It's ten times worse on those points. The Commision can put the Parliament out of play any time, as can the Council. There is no consumer protection at all.

There is no protection of privacy. There are no mandatory social protection rules.

I think you are being very naive in expecting a perfect constitution from the start. You have to look at what we have now ( http://europa.eu.int/comm/nice_treaty/index_en.htm ) and compare it to the proposed constitution. Given your objections, I'd say you'll find the Nice treaty much less to your liking.

[der bastler 0]

Are you serious? Have you taken a look at the Nice treaty? It's ten times worse on those points. The Commision can put the Parliament out of play any time, as can the Council.

Ok, you provided the link, I cross-checked it. Where is "putting out of play" stated? Earlier links of pro-constitution articels given by Donnervogel focused on "more fields of participation" and only small changes...

Quote[/b] ]There is no consumer protection at all.

There is no protection of privacy. There are no mandatory social protection rules.

Now I wonder if you really read the treaties you urged me to read...

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex....01.html

Quote[/b] ]TITLE XI

SOCIAL POLICY, EDUCATION, VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND YOUTH

CHAPTER 1

SOCIAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 2

THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND

CHAPTER 3

EDUCATION, VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND YOUTH

TITLE XIV

CONSUMER PROTECTION

[denoir 0]

Yeah, compare this:

Maastricht/Nice

Quote[/b] ]

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Article 153

1. In order to promote the interests of consumers and to ensure a high level of consumer protection, the Community shall contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of consumers, as well as to promoting their right to information, education and to organise themselves in order to safeguard their interests.

2. Consumer protection requirements shall be taken into account in defining and implementing other Community policies and activities.

3. The Community shall contribute to the attainment of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1 through:

(a)

measures adopted pursuant to Article 95 in the context of the completion of the internal market;

(b)

measures which support, supplement and monitor the policy pursued by the Member States.

4. The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, shall adopt the measures referred to in paragraph 3(b).

5. Measures adopted pursuant to paragraph 4 shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective measures. Such measures must be compatible with this Treaty. The Commission shall be notified of them.

To this:

Quote[/b] ]

Article II-98

Consumer protection

Union policies shall ensure a high level of consumer protection.

There's quite a difference between the Nice "promote" and the Constitution "ensure". The Nice version is basically a carte blanche to the member states to do as they wish.

[Donnervogel 0]

Bastler. I provided you two links. the secound is stating the differences to the Nice threaty. Those things are far from perfect and I agree it's not enough but it's much better than the Nice threaty. It's a step forward. Sure the Comission has the legislative power. But that's the same in the Nice threaty only that the Parliament can't say ANYTHING at all about those decissions. In the constitution the power of the parliement gets extended, not perfectioned. That's my point.

Also it's not true that the EU constitution limits social systems upwards. It limits it downwards. It doesn't forbid any member state to have a betetr social system. It only wants to implement a minimal standart. This standart should be available in all member states. If single states decide they can and want to have more services they surley can do that.

Even though the preamble is full of nice sounding intentions it doesn't change the fact that this is not to become the new german constitution. It is a constitutional threaty of course. But you need to see the difference between your national level and the supranational level of the EU constitution. I live in a federation of states where this system is applied since more or less 200 years. It's clear that you need some common standarts across the whole federation. But it doesn't change the fact that each member state is sovereign and can decide it's own laws/constitutions in his territory as long as they don't contradict with the federal law/constitution. What does this mean? An imaginary example: When they say "across the Union ervery citizen has the right to be socially supported bla bla exept in Poland where nobody has the right to be supported" it doesn't forbid Poland to introduce a social security for it's people. It just means Poles don't have a granted right for social support on the level of the Union. But if the national constitution includes a right for social security they do have this right. On the other hand it would give the Polish government the possiblity to take that right away again. Because in that case it's not contradicting to EU law to deny social security to Poles.

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]Article II-94 - Social security and social assistance

1. The Union recognises and respects the entitlement to social security benefits and social services

providing protection in cases such as maternity, illness, industrial accidents, dependency or old age,

and in the case of loss of employment, in accordance with the rules laid down by Union law and

national laws and practices.

2. Everyone residing and moving legally within the European Union is entitled to social security

benefits and social advantages in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices.

3. In order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the Union recognises and respects the right to

social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient

resources, in accordance with the rules laid down by Union law and national laws and practices.

As you can see the constitution does even literaly state the importance of the national law. It also uses terms like "recognises and respects" for the Brits that fear the constitution would make a communistc state out of the UK otherwise. Those terms do not enforce things. (although the Union law and IIRC some other articles set some minimal standarts)

[denoir 0]

Incidentally, this what the British are not to thrilled about - the social protection mentioned at Union level. They feel that it is a national matter. My own opinion is that it is an European matter, and that if there was to be a referendum, it should have been on European level, involving all nations, at the same time.

Anyway, a piece of trivia: Did you know that slightly more half the legislation of the member states are now at the European level and not the national?

[Donnervogel 0]

Anyway, a piece of trivia: Did you know that slightly more half the legislation of the member states are now at the European level and not the national?

That's not very much ;) In Switzerland it's about 75%. But that's because the Areas where federal rules are imposed (economy, traffic, social security and public services) make a large part of the legislation. But still every canton has it's own touch in those things. because the cantons can extend those rules. So social security is not exactly the same in every canton, taxes are very different in the different cantons and so on. It's just that the bulk of the laws concerning economy that are imposwed on federal level almost make 45% of all laws ;)

[der bastler 0]

You should have compared the correct articles.

Nice Art.153 (ensure) --> Constitution Art.II-98 (shall ensure, very fuzzy) + Art.III-235 (howto ensure)

Differences are marked bold...

Quote[/b] ]Article III-235

1. In order to promote the interests of consumers and to ensure a high level of consumer protection, the Union shall contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of consumers, as well as to promoting their right to information, education and to organise themselves in order to safeguard their interests.

2. The Union shall contribute to the attainment of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1 through:

(a) measures adopted pursuant to Article III-172 in the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market;

(b) measures which support, supplement and monitor the policy pursued by the Member States.

3. European laws or framework laws shall establish the measures referred to in paragraph 2(b). Such laws shall be adopted after consultation of the Economic and Social Committee.

4. Acts adopted pursuant to paragraph 3 shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective provisions. Such provisions must be compatible with the Constitution. They shall be notified to the Commission.

Quote[/b] ]Article 153

1. In order to promote the interests of consumers and to ensure a high level of consumer protection, the Community shall contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of consumers, as well as to promoting their right to information, education and to organise themselves in order to safeguard their interests.

2. Consumer protection requirements shall be taken into account in defining and implementing other Community policies and activities.

3. The Community shall contribute to the attainment of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1 through:

(a) measures adopted pursuant to Article 95 in the context of the completion of the internal market;

(b) measures which support, supplement and monitor the policy pursued by the Member States.

4. The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, shall adopt the measures referred to in paragraph 3(b).

5. Measures adopted pursuant to paragraph 4 shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective measures. Such measures must be compatible with this Treaty. The Commission shall be notified of them.

Differences:

* union -- community (nomenclature in context of constitution/treaty)

* provision -- measure (passive/active? Guess we'll need a lawyer for this one)

* laws -- Council (Constitution states laws after consultation of Committee, treaty states Council after consultation of Committee and following Art.251 [howto adopt an act])

* establishment and functioning -- completition

* Art.153,2 is absent in the Constitution. Perhaps it's built into another article? Can someone locate it?

I felt free to compare Art.III-172 Constitution and Art.95 Nice regarding consumer protection:

Quote[/b] ]Article III-172

3. The Commission, in its proposals submitted under paragraph 1 concerning health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, shall take as a base a high level of protection, taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific facts. Within their respective powers, the European Parliament and the Council shall also seek to achieve this objective.

Quote[/b] ]Article 95

3. The Commission, in its proposals envisaged in paragraph 1 concerning health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, will take as a base a high level of protection, taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific facts. Within their respective powers, the European Parliament and the Council will also seek to achieve this objective.

Differences:

* "will" and "shall" are quite different modal verbs...

[Bordoy 0]

Most of the media over here are saying that this is the end of a Federal Europe and France, Germany and another country (forgot which one) are considering options about the Euro currency. I wouldn't of thought the problems were that bad in France but i know in Germany the unemployment is high.

[denoir 0]

Most of the media over here are saying that this is the end of a Federal Europe and France, Germany and another country (forgot which one) are considering options about the Euro currency. I wouldn't of thought the problems were that bad in France but i know in Germany the unemployment is high.

That's just plain nonsense. The Euro is economically beneficial for the countries that have implemented it. Their perceived problems have completely different causes. Nobody is going to abandon the Euro - on the contrary already next year and the year after that several more countries are going to introduce it. IIRC within four years ten more countries plan to switch their currency for the Euro.

Unemployment is a very 19th century capitalist measure of an economy. Today it's only a relic that people for some reason have stuck to. As you increase social protection, automate the industry, unemployment will rise. This isn't a problem as long as you can afford it. Sweden is a good example - we have higher unemployment than Germany or France, but our economy is doing quite well. We have a significant growth, almost no debt and a budget surplus. The unemployed (well over 10%) have access to varios ways of spending their time (education etc) - government financed of course. It's expensive, but as long as you can afford it, it's not bad at all. It is better to have competent people working rather than everybody working.

So what's the problem with Germany? Economic growth. If you want to improve the economic situation for your citizens, then simply put, you need to earn more money each year. France's and Germany's growth has been minimal for the past few years, while the citizens expect improvements. Why do they have this problem? Unfortunately, it's not because they made bad economic decisions - it's because of the evolution of the role of the industry. Both Germany and France are ahead of the rest of Europe in that development, so we can all expect these problems in a not too distant future.

The primary reason is the decline of the consumer markets. People simply don't buy as much stuff as they can afford. Instead of material (industry produced) stuff, they are more interested in longer vacations, environmental issues etc At the same time the industry provides the backbone of the economy. The second reason is industrial automation, where these two countries are ahead of the rest of Europe as well. It's related to the first problem, in the sense that the industry is capable of a much greater output than the market is willing to buy. Lowering prices per unit has not helped, plus it is limited by the cost of hight wages. Exporting is difficult as European products are more expensive (again higher labour costs, higher taxes, consumer protection etc) than equivalent products from the rest of the world.

That's the basic problem. The solution is to phase out the serial production industry in favour of something else. The problem is that nobody knows what that "else" is yet.

Having said that, it is also important to notice that these countries have social protection that is stronger than anywhere else in the world. In addition, in France they've reduced the 40h week to 35h. In German industry it is not uncommon with 6h work days rather than 8h. Their vacations are longer, their consumer protection is stronger etc These things measured in money cost a lot, but on the other hand it raises the living quality of the population, which is to be dismissed.

A contrasting example is the UK where unemployment is low and the country has a positive growth.On the other hand, the British are forced to work far more, they have inferior social protection, shorter vacations etc Instead of an automated industry, in the UK uses manual labour.

And then there's my country Sweden, which combines the worst of both worlds in order to keep a "healthy" economy. We have one of the highest taxes in the world, while at the same time we have an inferior social protection. Thanks to that the government can finance the whole thing. How we got there is an interesting story of its own, but I'll take that another time..

[Bordoy 0]

I see what you saying Denoir. But if if more people worked in Sweden wouldn't that better for the country as a whole?

More income tax, less payout on such things as unemployed benefits etc.

Quote[/b] ]A contrasting example is the UK where unemployment is low and the country has a positive growth.On the other hand, the British are forced to work far more, they have inferior social protection, shorter vacations etc Instead of an automated industry, in the UK uses manual labour.

We like working well most of us, the rest are on benefits. People who are working are appalled that the EU might introduce a law making a cap for how long you can work as this will limit the person's income.

And by using manual labour more people are employed to do jobs which is good for the economy. The automated industries, as in Germany, have a relativity low amount of people employed in that sector which is why unemployment is high.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]A contrasting example is the UK where unemployment is low and the country has a positive growth.On the other hand, the British are forced to work far more, they have inferior social protection, shorter vacations etc  Instead of an automated industry, in the UK uses manual labour.

We like working    well most of us, the rest are on benefits. People who are working are appalled that the EU might introduce a law making a cap for how long you can work as this will limit the person's income.  

And by using manual labour more people are employed to do jobs which is good for the economy. The automated industries, as in Germany, have a relativity low amount of people employed in that sector which is why unemployment is high.

But automatization is on the rise ,especially in continental Europe ,and this automatization create's economical problems due to disbandment of labour. (yes it create's new labout to but not in the same masamount)

Atleast with having a good social welfare program and possibilety's to cut max work hours then you can atleast minimize the bad effects of automatization evolution in a capitalist structure.

It would be stupid to try to stop the evolution of the automatization industry though ,automatized labour is far more effeciant than human labout ,in a capitalism human laboutr is important ,outside that system compared to automatized labour it's increasingly inneficiant and wastefull.

teh future is to automatization IMO ,and our economical system has to addapt to that ,rather than throwing away this potential in favour for a unperfect economical system.

[denoir 0]

I see what you saying Denoir. But if if more people worked in Sweden wouldn't that better for the country as a whole?

More income tax, less payout on such things as unemployed benefits etc.

I think that a solution somewhere in between would be preferable. For instance more people employed, but a significantly shorter work day.

The problem is that somebody has to pay for it - i.e the companies through taxes. On the international scene, it might not be possible, as companies have the choice of moving somewhere else. In the long run, it shouldn't make too much of a difference, as quality of living, social benefits etc are getting equalized overall. For instance, China today can produce cheap labour, but that is quickly disappearing as they are getting a strong middle class, that wants good pay and solid vacations.

In the short run, I think however that traditional industry in Europe is a failed project as it can't be competitive. The wages and social standards are too high compared to the rest of the world. America is facing the same problem - it will survive a bit longer because of cheaper labour and more relaxed labour laws as well as a very active domestic consumer market, but it's only a question of time there as well.

It's not however the end of the world. The same thing happened some 150 years ago, when the agricultural society ceased to exist. Before, for centuries some 90% of Europe's population was in agriculture - today it is a few percent. It was a dramatic change, there was some trouble with the transition, but in the end we're better off today. Despite such a small portion of the population being farmers, there's more food then ever and it's cheap enough that nobody has to be hungry. The same thing will happen to industry - it will get more or less completely automated and only a small portion of the population will work there. Industrial products, will the same way as food will not be an issue in terms of affordability.

Quote[/b] ]We like working    well most of us, the rest are on benefits. People who are working are appalled that the EU might introduce a law making a cap for how long you can work as this will limit the person's income.  

Yeah, the idea there is to prevent employers from forcing employees working too long hours. Even if your employer can't technically order you to work more, he is in a position to "suggest" that you "volunteer" to work more - and there's little you can do about it.

This also however has to be taken into context of the rest of the social protection. If you get free child care, longer paid vacation etc, then perhaps you don't need to earn that extra money.

Quote[/b] ]And by using manual labour more people are employed to do jobs which is good for the economy. The automated industries, as in Germany, have a relativity low amount of people employed in that sector which is why unemployment is high.

Indeed, but it is an unavoidable path. You can't put a stop to technological development that makes economic sense. The same way we can't go back to the time when everybody worked in agriculture, it is unlikely we can turn back the clock on the social developments in regards to the industry.

[Necromancer- 0]

I think there is something that we Western countries have and other countries not...

Which is our "knowledge"..

If governments invest much more in modernizing our educational systems and encouraging people to study any kinds of things.. then we can "outsource" ourselves to countries which have a strong economical growth.

[Donnervogel 0]

If governments invest much more in modernizing our educational systems and encouraging people to study any kinds of things..

The EU actually has sevral programs that try to archieve exactly that. I understand that the you may or may not like the EU economical/social policies but one should not forget that the EU has many other programs running too and that not everything that comes from the EU is the devil's work ;)

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think there is something that we Western countries have and other countries not...

Which is our "knowledge"..

If governments invest much more in modernizing our educational systems and encouraging people to study any kinds of things.. then we can "outsource" ourselves to countries which have a strong economical growth.

We don't have that anymore. They have very high quality universities for instance in India. And they have a population of a billion. So when people get accepted to the elite universities there, they are really really good. Knowledge and technology is not exclusive today. What we do have is that together the EU has nearly half a billion citizens that are on average much better educated than their Indian or Chinese counterparts. So if we stick together in international competition, we might stand a chance.

Anyway, the US conservatives are still very thrilled about the results of the referedums:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20050603.shtml

Quote[/b] ]

Brussels is burning

Jonah Goldberg

If Schadenfreude is taking pleasure in the misfortune of others, then I've got a case of Eurofreude - or Francofreude, or maybe something else. All I know is this: The Europeans who annoy me are moping like they found a fingernail in their brie, and I'm feeling mighty freude. Or schaden. Or whatever.

The decision by French voters to reject the proposed European Union Constitution by 55 percent to 45 percent was a knockout blow all by itself. But when the Dutch voted down the constitution by nearly a 2-1 margin, it was as if the voice in the wind blowing off those windmills was shouting in Dutch ears, "Kick 'em again!"

Now it looks like the British won't even hold a referendum on the thing, which means in all likelihood that this version of the EU project is doomed. (Doomed, I tell you! Bwahahaha!)

That is simply great news. In recent years the entire EU project - at least in Western Europe - has taken on an anti-American flavor. Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac - the lame duck and electorally doomed leaders of Germany and France, respectively - have kept their political engines running on the fumes of anti-Americanism in recent years. The EU project has been sold as a means of counterbalancing the American "hyperpower," as the French call it. If a project with that kind of billing stumbles - and stumbles badly - and if anti-American nags like Schroeder and Chirac take it in the pants in the process, there can be no more appropriate response from the intelligent American than to dance a jig, do a shot, and wave the giant foam "We're #1" finger in the air.

But American political leaders should do that behind closed doors. Public gloating wouldn't be in our interests.

Indeed, once we get that out of our system, there's a great deal we should be cautious about. The EU Constitution didn't fail because of widespread pro-American sentiment. It failed because French and Dutch voters saw their national - and personal - interests at odds with the constitution. The last thing we should do is distract European voters' attention away from the economy, immigration and the like by making them angry at us. Gloating would only invite precisely the sort of anti-American pique Chirac and Schroeder have exploited since before the Iraq war.

One of the fascinating factors in the French referendum was that anti-Americanism of one kind or another motivated both yes and no voters. The yes voters were interested in, among other things, creating the sort of European superstate the French have envisioned for decades. The no voters were concerned that the EU Constitution would usher in American-style "ultraliberalism" (one thing the Europeans do have going for them is they still use the word "liberal" correctly).

The French have absurdly lavish social welfare policies, particularly for the middle class and for workers. Opening France to more economic competition threatens their cushy perks. (I knew a French businessman who wanted to fire a lousy truck driver who kept missing work. He had to make an appointment with government bureaucrats six weeks in advance in order to get permission to fire his own employee.)

This points to one of the great ironies of globalization: It imposes a regression to the global mean. Various commentators have marveled at the fact that Britain and France think the EU Constitution means opposite things. The Brits don't like it because they fear it will bring Euro-socialism, while the French fear it will move France in the laissez-faire direction. Many have attributed this to voter confusion over what the constitution actually says. Why else would the Brits think it's a socialist tract while the French are convinced it's a plan for economic liberalization?

While it's true that the proposed constitution reads like a Xerox machine repair manual, the voters aren't that confused. France's bourgeois welfare state would have to be unraveled under the new regime, while comparatively free-market Britain would find its economy pulled toward greater statism.

Add the fact that the document itself is impenetrable and you can hardly blame voters for erring on the side of caution. You don't roll the dice when you might potentially be voting away your sovereignty and lifestyle. For the record, though, the constitution is no free-market tract - if Adam Smith were alive, he'd spontaneously burst into flames if he read it.

Of course, there were other reasons the constitution failed so spectacularly, including:

1) The French political system is scandalously undemocratic, and the French people felt they hadn't been consulted.

2) This may have been the last chance voters had to express their fears of Turkey joining the EU.

3) Chirac and Schroeder are unpopular fossils.

4) Ours is a just and decent God.

In any case, America and Europe have a wonderful opportunity to rework this project along lines that are in Europe's interests and ours. Let's just hope that French and German egos can handle Uncle Sam coming to the rescue - again.

Donnervogel:

Quote[/b] ]The EU actually has sevral programs that try to archieve exactly that. I understand that the you may or may not like the EU economical/social policies but one should not forget that the EU has many other programs running too and that not everything that comes from the EU is the devil's work ;)

Yepp, I attended briefly a conference last week on the theme "Philosophy of computing". It was a regular scientific conference with people from all around the world. Most were from Europe. You wouldn't believe how pro EU the scientific community is. And oddly enough, this includes Americans and Asians. The scientist seem to have a huge use of the European cooperation and of various EU-funded projects.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Islamophobia’ / Turkey Out Now That France Negates EU Constitution?

In the last several days, the EU Council of 46 concluded to establish a law that made criticizing Islam a crime throughout Europe . The Council referred to "Islamophobia" as being criminal activity.

All this was initiated by Turkey .

Turkey prides itself on being a totally secular nation, though it is in fact very much a Muslim nation. Yet it downplays its Muslim religion because of the bad press Islam is getting? Therefore, Turkey tries to have the world conclude that it is not really a rabid Islamic country; instead it is a secular country to the core.

However, obviously it is very much a Muslim power seeking to infiltrate the European Union. Already it has convinced the EU Council that to state anything critical about Islam could land one in jail or worse. Does that make Turkey a totally secular nation? Or does not that make Turkey an Islamic state seeking to overcome the world for Allah?

But now that the French have negated the EU constitution, Turkey may be in limbo.

According to The Washington Times report, "Analysts and voters said yesterday that the treaty's defeat in France had to do more with (the) potential membership for Turkey . . ."

That in itself is revealing. The defeat of the EU constitution by French voters had to do with "potential membership for Turkey "? How very, very interesting.

Then there is an awareness that Turkey in the EU is a bad thing. Then there is a fear that Turkey being a part of the EU would bring havoc to the continent? Then there is a grassroots knowledge that Turkey is in fact a prop for worldwide Muslim takeover and not just a benign nation with totally secular intentions?

Could the French negative be God’s positive in saving Europe — irreligious as it is — from the Islamic blood bath planned for all infidels? Could God be protecting the Christian community from the global rule of Muslim might? Could genuine believers’ prayers be answered by this French NO to the EU constitution?

It is all a most intriguing event that occurred within the last hours. The French may be more of a divine tool that they ever envisioned

So now it's a crime to have an opinion on things?