European Politics Thread.

[Apollo 0]

De Gucht has send his written appologies to Balkenende ,but it seems as Balkenende isn't accepting that yet.Meanwhile voices come up in belgium to fire De Gucht from his position ,i really hope they do that.

I heard btw. that while De Gucht was making his insult's belgian diplomats were just heavily bussy in negotiations about important issue's such as the Iron Rhine and the de-siltening of the Shelde river ,De gucht couln't have taken a worse time.

Quote[/b] ]I think he reached a lot of people who have problems fully understanding the political system and the consequences of their actions. It is said he brought a lot of people to vote who normally never voted, I do not feel this is a good thing. Many of the fortuynist vote for parties for things those parties dont even stand for. Often I hear these people talking about political parties in the same way as they talk about soccerteams. I think Fortuyn did the dutch political system a lot of damage and it would have been far better had he never risen to fame. We now are living through the aftershocks of the mess he made. I think his "legacy" populisme and stupidity will hurt the netherlands for years to come .

O i agree completly ,Fortuyn was flat poppulism and Van gogh was outright xenofobic.I would say it's a pitty that both were murdered ,they would have been much more obscure alive ,now they are a sort of heroic martyr of dutch politics.

It's like what i said ,how would germans perceive Hitler if he had died on the xenith of his succes?

You can be easily succesfull though with poppulism if you have some charisma ,poppulism usually is more liked by lower classes in society and less by the more educated people usually though.Populist politicians usually gains much in a political establishment that is genneraly not liked by it's population anyway ,thats the reason that swine of a Filip Dewinter is so powerfull in belgium to.

Yet i had to handed it to fortuyn at some point ,that when De Winter congragulated Fortuyn for his succes in the Netherlands ,Fortuyn wasn't keen on taking those in thanks ,atleast fortuyn still distantiated himself from the trash that is Vlaams Blok.

The netherlands need a new moderate with Charisma ,a person like Kock maybe ,I might not like the Gught but i's kinda true that Blakenende has the charisma of a tomato.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Holland (a term equal to the Netherlands)

Heh you silly norwegians

Hehe, it doesn't work that way. You can insult a Norwegian by calling him Swedish, but not the other way around. It's the same way a German won't take it as a personal offense if you call him Dutch, while the Dutch don't appreciate their country being called a German province. In relationsihps between countries, the histroically dominant one is usually less sensitive.

As for Holland/Netherlands, it is really only Dutch people that make that distinction. Perhaps it is time for the Dutch that arn't from the Holland regions time to accept that you've been conquered - even if it is not by military force but by linguistic definition  

Quote[/b] ]

Well I hope you can also learn to love stupidity, shallowness, narrowmindedness, populisme and xenophobia in the long run because that appears to be the trend Fortuyn set  

Yeah, that's truly a pity. Before the whole Fortuyn thing, the Netherlands were my absolute favourite country. The population and even the government represented a liberalism very close to my own. Unfortunately things have turned to the worse in the last few years

[Apollo 0]

Well i think many of the current resentmen in the Netherlands these days come from the Holland region (the randstad) ,where past building policy's have probably created one of the most frustrating regions to live in ,i deffinatly wouldn't like to live in the randstad ,few living space ,stressfull trafic and life ,lots of crime.Some parts of the ranstad look plain ugly ,deffinatly those blocks of social housing you find all over there.

No wonder so many Dutch move to live in quiter regions of the Netherlands ,or outright in Belgium or Germany.

I wouldn't say ,as Fortuyn once put it,"The Netherlands is full" ,but i think it does apply for the Randstad though ,and for the rest of the Netherlands ,it's a problem that the righ in The Netherlands buy up large sections of nice land in the Netherlands itself ,making it hard for any dutchman to ever find a nice affordable free patch of land to build upon.

Btw. i think Swedes are more easily ticked off being called Danes than Norwegians ,Kalmar union fallout still exists i think  ...  .

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, this union thing is going the completely wrong way. We should go back to the middle ages model where every shitty little province with its own dialect hates and wages war on its neighbours.

Don't be silly. We'll (British) will be forced into laying claims in French lands (100 years war anyone?) and German lands (as our monarchy is actually a German family, well they were German). lol

[Donnervogel 0]

Well principly Denoir is right there.

How long is it ago that we stopped slaughtering each other in western europe? 1000 years? no! 100 years? no! only 60 years. Or even less if you want to count the conflicts in Ireland.

And 60 years are nothing. That's a quite short period. And if you look back to see which institution made a peaceful place out of western europe it has to to with all the stuff that made us colaborate. And the EU and everything that was before is definitly something that is promoting peaceful means and hindering government to solve their problems with their military. (Also the common "enemy in the east" and the US support were important aspects)

I just don't think people got any more reasonable than they were in the past. If the EU would fall appart it is very likely that we will start threatening each other again with military means sooner or later. The EU is a road to peace in Europe IMHO and it would be a catastrophy if it fails. That however does not mean that the current EU must go on. If people demand a different EU they shall have a different EU. But the priciple of european colaboration is very important and must be kept alive. And not only for reason of peace and war. But also to increase our competiveness in the globalised world. Because that's the only way we can keep our very high social standarts - if that's possible at all.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, this union thing is going the completely wrong way. We should go back to the middle ages model where every shitty little province with its own dialect hates and wages war on its neighbours.

Don't be silly. We'll (British) will be forced into laying claims in French lands (100 years war anyone?) and German lands (as our monarchy is actually a German family, well they were German). lol

Would that be before or after the Scots would come down from their mountains in kilts, doing a bad Mel Gibson impression while burning down half of England?

Or when huge gangs of tough, sinewy men from Wales would roam the valleys of England, terrifying people with their close-harmony singing?

Donnervogel:

Quote[/b] ]I just don't think people got any more reasonable than they were in the past. If the EU would fall appart it is very likely that we will start threatening each other again with military means sooner or later.

At the same time integration is not necessarily a guarantee of peace. Just look at what happened to Yugoslavia. They had a federal system. The economies of the republics were very intra-dependant. Still, it broke up, and it was bloody. Nationalism prevailed. Now one may blame the communist economic system that was in place, but ultimately the problem was that people felt that it was a forced integration. National interests lived and some republics felt cheated by others. So they wanted to leave the federation.

The primary economic factor was that Slovenia and Croatia were funding over 90% of the federal budget, which they thought was a bad deal. The military however was mostly under Serbian control (not by policy, but because of culture - Serbia had a much stronger military tradition). Couple that together with a ruthless political operator (Milosevic) who managed to take advantage of the breakdown and gain control of the military, populist governments coming into power - and you have your war. Mind you that the system had all forms of checks and balances, and still somehow the federal military got used to enforce one faction's interests.

So there is a risk involved in creating artificial integration. If the people feel the deal is unfair or that the group is too diverse, you can have some serious problems.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Would that be before or after the Scots would come down from their mountains in kilts, doing a bad Mel Gibson impression while burning down half of England?

Or when huge gangs of tough, sinewy men from Wales would roam the valleys of England, terrifying people with their close-harmony singing?

Well I've already formulated a plan to rebuild Hadrian Wall.

All of the armed forces will be bought to England. And we shall be training some longbowmen just in case anyone wants their ass kicked.

[Donnervogel 0]

@Denoir

Well that's one reason why I opt for common EU military rather than national ones. Because then the danger of one nations having a strong standalone military that it could use to enforce whatever it wants would be minimal. Because if you make it right you can have national contingents measured in manpower. But the equippment would be managed on EU level. That way you could prevent that one nation has a military that is capable of operating without the others. So every military would depend on the other militaries. It's the same way in Switzerland. And since we have it that way we had no armed internal confilcts like in the past. ;) But I know such a proposal is very unpopular so it just a dream of mine.

But even in Yugoslavia the shit started when the "Union" broke appart. The point is. As long as all the nations are in the EU and don't try to leave it they will also use the EU institutions to complain/archieve their goals. And the EU institution luckly are peaceful ones.

[Bordoy 0]

@Donnervogel:

Who is the EU going to fight with this army?

Americas? Asia? Africa? Ocenia?

What i want to know is, if there was an EU military, would the UK be allowed to join with the US in certain wars etc? or is it like the UN where you put a small amount of soldiers into it.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Im drunk in a bad mood but i gotta reply to a few things..

According to a recent report the British are second only to Denmark in the EU for successfully implementing and complying with EU legislation. So as for what we do in the EU, i imagine we spend most of our time filling out bullshit forms these days.

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]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.

Why is it a European (Union) matter? We now have or soon will have legislation which i would judge most of the population regards as appropriate. British Unions are themselves open to continued negotiation with the government on the matter of an opt out clause waiver for dedicated workers (implemented in such a way as to discourage coercion or an extra hours 'culture') according to the LibDem treasury minister.

I honestly dont see why we need commission or EP involvement here. Protection of the exploited is one (admirable) thing, but the government telling people happy to work longer hours in situations where noone is being harmed (eg single guy in his twenties who wants to work his way to greater prosperity by putting in extra hours or Czech game developers working hard) that they are not allowed by law is something i disagree with fundamentally. The EU is seen as too inflexible and Kafkaesque as it is.

I agree about the referendums though.

Quote[/b] ]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?

Only half? I honestly expected it was more by now.

The subjects of large chunks of this legislation were already covered by UK law and some of the less specifically tailored ill fitting EU versions provide regular fuel for the anti EU fire in opposition groups, British newspapers (and tabloids/public opinion), im even starting to find more critical articles in the Guardian nowadays. Besides which countries such as Spain for instance seem to flat out ignore it in many cases (maybe only legislating, not to mention tormenting bulls, for fun).

Quote[/b] ]Bordoy-"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

'Most of the media' are not saying federal europe is dead but there have been rumbling of discontent about the Euro reported. Not surprising considering the two 'no' votes in founding states but its probably nothing more than a blip in the end. I certainly agree that its not going to singlehandedly bring down the euro.

Quote[/b] ] 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.

Maybe. The French peasants (sorry -farmers-) undercutting poor africans whove worked it so that the rest of europe is subsidising them whilst they are still employing 1900s era farming methods to are certainly 'ahead' in some respects.

Quote[/b] ]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.

I dont think this is a problem that cant be solved (and if he fires you, sue/work tribunal his ass).

Quote[/b] ]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.

Yet, perhaps some people (who may or may not have kids or want a holiday) simply want to decide for themselves rather than being prohibited by law.

Bordoy-

Quote[/b] ]"The French may be more of a divine tool that they ever envisioned"

It's probably bollocks, lol.

The person who wrote that article is the divine tool.

Balschoiw-

Quote[/b] ]I kept out this thread for quite a reason. I see myself as a european in many ways and I just can´t argue with guys who try to stage up reasons one after the other only because they pee their pants because of nationalistic ideas or an national identity which is infact nonsense. At least to me.

I wonder if they all still would be happy to end in endless cues at the borders like it was when I was young.

Sure, there needs to be a clear definition of europe, but there also needs to be the support of the people for the idea. It´s quite dissapointing that a lot of people can´t dare the risk to look over their own cup. Chance missed.

I can understand that people living on an island have a funny way of thinking and the burden of beeing a former colonial superpower that has degraded to a country with no real national identity other than financing a queen and crowding at soccer games, but all that permanent moaning and taking sideways is really not very much european. The Brits don´t hesitate to get special money from the EU and benefits other member countries don´t have but they are the first to leave the EU when matters like illegal wars are on the list. Oneday the EU eill have to tell the Brits: "Either you are with us or against us"

I don´t blame the people in france or the netherlands for the voting on the EU referendum. It´s local policies who got voted against there, not the EU thingy. A lot of people in that countries feel ashamed for that vote and they will finally find out that you can either isolate from the EU or stick with them.

People have to get the thing into their heads that noone tries to take something from them. It´s a community, not a slavery institution...

Germany is not the EU. France is not the EU, that should be becoming clear. I do think the UK should scrap its rebate, if in return the French ditch the rotten CAP as part of an overall reorganisation.

You dont think moaning is european (you have never been to France or Greece? )

Maybe id be happy to closer integrate with europe if it wasnt for the stench of corruption, gesture politics (and legislation), anti semitism and anti Roma feeling (which i recently sampled first hand in central and eastern europe-also in a recent Observer article>hate in a graveyard ), unrepentant Austrian nazi MPs, Italian Mussolini-ites, unreformed marxists yadda yadda. You see Balschoiw i dont think any country in europe is perfect from the perspective of all others (let the bastards without sin cast the first 'no' vote etc) and railing against any one country is both unfair and unlikely to improve the situation (or the cause of european peace and harmony).

Britain used to look up to Western Germany in the seventies when we voted yes to stay in 'europe' ( Common Market, EC or whatever it was called then). I really think a lot of the legislation (though by no means all) hasnt done any good in this country, only serving to make the EU unfortunatly less popular. It doesnt have to be like this.

[denoir 0]

@Denoir

Well that's one reason why I opt for common EU military rather than national ones. Because then the danger of one nations having a strong standalone military that it could use to enforce whatever it wants would be minimal. Because if you make it right you can have national contingents measured in manpower. But the equippment would be managed on EU level. That way you could prevent that one nation has a military that is capable of operating without the others. So every military would depend on the other militaries. It's the same way in Switzerland. And since we have it that way we had no armed internal confilcts like in the past. ;) But I know such a proposal is very unpopular so it just a dream of mine.

The military in Yugoslavia was federal, not national. The control was also fully in federal hands. When Slovenia and Croatia left the federation the subsequent military invasion was federal. The Yugoslav constitution allowed for republics to break free, but there was a debate about the formal steps required to break off. The republics that separated claimed that they had fulfilled their constitutional duties, while Serbia disagreed.

So when they formally left, Serbia was as the by far largest republic de facto left in control of the federation and hence the military as well. By this time Milosevic was in political control of Serbia - and through that he got control of the federation council and the military. The subsequent invasion of first Slovenia and then Croatia by federal forces was done in the name of protecting federal interests.

As it would happen, the military consisted of 3/4 Serbs, due to Serbia being the largest republic and because of their military tradition. So as the federation was falling apart, so was the federal military. Officialy however, it was federal for quite a while - it role however was changed officialy to "protecting minorities". While the federal military was responsible for arming paramilitary forces, in general they behaved fairly professionaly and were not directly responsible for any war crimes per se. Over time however, through control from Belgrade, the military merged with the paramilitary forces.

Quote[/b] ]But even in Yugoslavia the shit started when the "Union" broke appart. The point is. As long as all the nations are in the EU and don't try to leave it they will also use the EU institutions to complain/archieve their goals. And the EU institution luckly are peaceful ones.

The shit in Yugoslavia started about ten years before the first shots were fired. The economy was becoming very bad and the richer republics were dissatisfied at having to pay for the poorer ones. Politically it was a mess as well as there were constant power strugles in the federal council (more or less identical to the EU commision). And then there was Milosevic. He got into power through a populist agenda and the support of some unions. His modus operandi was to take bussloads of his supporters and organize rallies against the goverments in the republics. The demonstrators demanded that the people in charge resign. They were loud enough and violent enough (think busloads of English footbal hooligans) to make it work. The local governments didn't want any violence, so they resigned and Milosevic moved in placing a man of his own. This happened in Serbia, Monte Negro and Macedonia. When his supporters were on the way to Slovenia, Croatia closed its borders to Serbia, refusing to let the supporters through. That was one of the main ignition points.

Milosevic was aiming at control of Yugoslavia, republic by republic - but Yugoslavia was falling apart. Instead of shipping supporters from Serbia, Milosevic now tried to organize local support in the republics. In Slovenia this failed completely. In Croatia this coincided with the elections where a nationalist party won. This was used as the base of fear propaganda urging the Serb minority to arm themselves, that their lives were in danger. Some of them did, with the help of factions of the federal military.

This was before Slovenia and Croatia actually declare independence. So there was a long prelude of trouble.

Anyway, my overall point is that Yugoslavia was by no means a banana republic whose government changed on a daily basis. It was a highly beaurocratic federation with millions of laws and regulations. In many ways it is quite similar to what a EU federation would look like.

The question of the military is not a simple one as you have cultural differences. For instance in Europe, Britain and France would most certainly be dominant. In Germany for instance today, there is a very strong culture of pacifism, and it's unlikely that the country would signficantly contribute to a common EU military.

[denoir 0]

Why is it a European (Union) matter? We now have or soon will have legislation which i would judge most of the population regards as appropriate. British Unions are themselves open to continued negotiation with the government on the matter of an opt out clause waiver for dedicated workers (implemented in such a way as to discourage coercion or an extra hours 'culture') according to the LibDem treasury minister.

I honestly dont see why we need commission or EP involvement here. Protection of the exploited is one (admirable) thing, but the government telling people happy to work longer hours in situations where noone is being harmed (eg single guy in his twenties who wants to work his way to greater prosperity by putting in extra hours or Czech game developers working hard) that they are not allowed by law is something i disagree with fundamentally. The EU is seen as too inflexible and Kafkaesque as it is.

I agree about the referendums though.

If you want to maximize the economic benefits of the EU, you need to equalize the playing field. If say Finland decides that they will skip all forms of social protection, labour laws and say corporate taxes, it would create uneven market conditions. This would undermine the industry in every other single country.

Quote[/b] ]I do think the UK should scrap its rebate, if in return the French ditch the rotten CAP as part of an overall reorganisation.

That I agree with. The problem is that there is no way in hell the UK is going to give up its rebate and there is no way in hell the French are going to give up their darling CAP. Both are rotten ways by two states using their size to get money. It sucks, and so does Germany and Italy cheating on the stability pact, but that's life.

Quote[/b] ]Only half? I honestly expected it was more by now.

Half is a lot. That means that we are equally much now member states in a Union as we are individual nation states.

Possibly it is the root of a lot of complaints - that people feel that this has been introduced behind their backs. You sign up for some economic union one day and the next you are de facto part of a federation.

I don't think however the style of integration is necessarily bad. I think it helps us as thee EU is focusing on substance rather than form. We don't have a president that flies "L'Avion Un". We don't have any military parades. There is nobody in the world burning the EU flag.

Simply put the EU does not try to encapsulate the form of a nation state, which both facilitates the internal integration as well as the communication with other countries.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Actually Blair could probably get away with eliminating the rebate as long as he could sell it as part of a deal 'good for Britain' (ie he'd have to get something back). Legislation and sovereignty are more of an issue than the money is nowadays, but on the CAP you may be right. What would France be without picturesque, antiquated farms (...Britain lol)

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]If you want to maximize the economic benefits of the EU, you need to equalize the playing field. If say Finland decides that they will skip all forms of social protection, labour laws and say corporate taxes, it would create uneven market conditions. This would undermine the industry in every other single country.

I dont think its so simple or clear cut, there are always countries outside the EU to undermine industry anyway(throughout the EU). The playing field isnt level now and yet i dont see Finland collapsing because of, for instance, the UK working time waiver. Anyway, judging by the recent vote other member states are also uncomfortable with scrapping the current exceptions in the law.

Quote[/b] ]There is nobody in the world burning the EU flag.

Question of time. As soon as we 'do' anything as a whole then you bet your yellow stars people will get pissed off (actually people are already pissed off with EU subsidies from Africa to Albania). Not to mention EU citizens...

[Donnervogel 0]

@Denoir

Interesting. I wasn't very well informed about Yugoslavia. Well still I claim a federation can work as a "peace keeper". Maybe there need to be other things too to stay peaceful but I think the risk of war in western europe is greater if there was no EU.

@Bordoy

Quote[/b] ]Who is the EU going to fight with this army?

Uhm. That question is quite silly. My point is the EU army should fight nobody ideally. It should be a defense force. And maybe the EU could have some sort of Task Force for Peace Keeping missions or Reconstruction Teams and so on.

Quote[/b] ]What i want to know is, if there was an EU military, would the UK be allowed to join with the US in certain wars etc? or is it like the UN where you put a small amount of soldiers into it.

No that's one point to increase EU security. No member should be allowed to wage any "private" wars without the EU approving it. I know there are too many people disagreeing on that point but that just my opinion ;)

The thing is in that the UK would not be able to fight a war on it's own. Because it wouldn't get a full scale army on it's own. It only privides men to the army. The army then decides what those men do. What roles they have and so on. Also the EU would mange all the heavy equippment like APCs, Tanks, Choppers and so on. This will also help to make all equippment compatible to each other and it would save lot's of money because there would be only one Air Force, One Navy, One Army, etc. Not 25 of each ;)

And no it's not like the UN. It would be a real army and hopefully a powerful one. But because it's manged federally it's not going to be easy to deploy those troops somewhere else. They should be a Defence Force. I have no interest in having the EU at war anywhere iof it isn't forced upon the EU.

Besides. The UN is not a military organisation. Basicly the UN has no Army at all. It has troops of member states operating under UN mandate. And it also finances (at least partially) what the troops do in those cases. And it has a few military members that work for the UN. But those troops are mostly only people that observe situaitions or protect UN facillities.

[denoir 0]

@Denoir

Interesting. I wasn't very well informed about Yugoslavia. Well still I claim a federation can work as a "peace keeper". Maybe there need to be other things too to stay peaceful but I think the risk of war in western europe is greater if there was no EU.

It can. My own firm belief is that free trade is the key - Free trade prevents wars.

Quote[/b] ]And no it's not like the UN. It would be a real army and hopefully a powerful one. But because it's manged federally it's not going to be easy to deploy those troops somewhere else. They should be a Defence Force. I have no interest in having the EU at war anywhere iof it isn't forced upon the EU.

Personally, I'm not a proponent of the EU becoming a military superpower. I think a force should be kept to provide peace keeping task forces. The strategic defence is already ensured by the strategic arsenal of nuclear weapons. Beyond that, IMO only a basic defence force should be kept.

I am however for a common defence, mainly because it would save a shitload of money. What I am more interested is in a common foreign policy - which I think is a necessity if any European state wants to have any say in the world. Europe became a relevant economic factor internationally once we joined forces. We need to do the same thing with foreign policy.

IsthatyouJohnWayne:

Quote[/b] ]I dont think its so simple or clear cut, there are always countries outside the EU to undermine industry anyway(throughout the EU). The playing field isnt level now and yet i dont see Finland collapsing because of, for instance, the UK working time waiver. Anyway, judging by the recent vote other member states are also uncomfortable with scrapping the current exceptions in the law.

Nah, they only decided to postpone it, mostly because of the new member states not being able to make a decision at this point.

Anyway, I'm partially with you on this one. I think some minimum regulations are needed, but I think that to a larger extent than what is proposed the subsidiary principle should be applied. I'm simply not sure that there is a need to micro manage some of the things at union level.

Quote[/b] ]Question of time. As soon as we 'do' anything as a whole then you bet your yellow stars people will get pissed off (actually people are already pissed off with EU subsidies from Africa to Albania). Not to mention EU citizens...

We are doing many things as a whole as it is today. And for instance we are indeed fucking over plenty of countries with the EU agricultural subsidies. There has however been very little hatred directed at the EU. Perhaps it is because we don't give the Union a 'national personality'. Actually, the loudest EU opponents are some of our right-wing friends across the Atlantic - but they are generally trying to portray the EU as something it clearly is not - a United States of Europe nation state.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Besides. The UN is not a military organisation. Basicly the UN has no Army at all. It has troops of member states operating under UN mandate. And it also finances (at least partially) what the troops do in those cases. And it has a few military members that work for the UN. But those troops are mostly only people that observe situaitions or protect UN facillities.

Pakistan and countries around there pour alot of men into the UN army. Whats with blue bloody helmets?

Quote[/b] ] It only privides men to the army

And women.

Quote[/b] ]The thing is in that the UK would not be able to fight a war on it's own.

that's why we hook up with the US

Quote[/b] ]No member should be allowed to wage any "private" wars without the EU approving it.

EU approve a war, never happen.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Pakistan and countries around there pour alot of men into the UN army.

Yes trhey do it for financial reasons as the country gets payment for the soldiers but the soldiers don´t get the equal money on their paycheque. A lot of african countries and minor countries boost their budget by doing this.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Pakistan and countries around there pour alot of men into the UN army.

Yes trhey do it for financial reasons as the country gets payment for the soldiers but the soldiers don´t get the equal money on their paycheque. A lot of african countries and minor countries boost their budget by doing this.

I don't know if i have to find this a good thing or bad thing.

We let em do the dirty work and probably pay to few, on the other hand the job gets done and it provide's labour.Probably african bluehelmets are also moreeasily accepted in Africa then Europeans.

[Donnervogel 0]

Pakistan and countries around there pour alot of men into the UN army. Whats with blue bloody helmets?

Well in regart to their legal status those troops remain Pakistani troops and commanded by Pakistan. The problem that can appear with such situation is that Musharaf actually has higher commanding power over those troops than the UN security council. I've never heard of that problem arising so far though. But there's a big legal problem with those troops. Because it's not the UN's troops but it's a kind of service that Pakistan provides for the UN.

Quote[/b] ]that's why we hook up with the US

then leave the EU (for that it'll be handy to have the constitution because it provides legal means for that.)

Quote[/b] ]EU approve a war, never happen.

I hope so.

[baff 0]

The EU recently approved the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Kuwait and the invasion of Bosnia.

(Or at least each and every member of the EU individually approved those invasions and many joined in).

Quote[/b] ]If you want to maximize the economic benefits of the EU, you need to equalize the playing field. If say Finland decides that they will skip all forms of social protection, labour laws and say corporate taxes, it would create uneven market conditions. This would undermine the industry in every other single country.

On the contrary, it strengthens them.

collectively 24 weak men + 1 strong man are more powerful than 25 weak men.

Quote[/b] ]it would create uneven market conditions

This logic is based on a false precept.

Market conditions* are inherantly uneven by their very nature.

Trying to enforce an artificial balance simply weakens Europes ability to flexibly react to the ever constant challanges of the world economy.

Strong "protection" as described is an economy killer.

(*)Politicians do not create those conditions, God does. The best we can do is learn to better adapt to them and maybe even successfully predict them once in a while.

Increased labour laws and corporate taxation simply encourages inefficient and unprofitable business practise.

High tax and low working hours means lower profits.

Lower profits mean lower investment.

Lower investment means lower growth.

Enter low employment, inflation and currency devaluation.

If you are not intrested in competing in the world market, you should not be considering international trade agreements in the first place.

It's one thing to screw up your own economy, it's another thing completely to demand that "to make things even" your friends do too.

Thats just wrong. Plain and simple.

[denoir 0]

I think you are missing the point of the Common Market completely. We're not supposed to compete with each other in Europe on a state vs state basis. The point is creating a unified market where industry and commerce is pan-European. The point is to be able to compete with other giants such as the US or China.

If we wish to be able to compete we have no choice but to work together as a single economic unit.

Quote[/b] ]Increased labour laws and corporate taxation simply encourages inefficient and unprofitable business practise.

High tax and low working hours means lower profits.

Lower profits mean lower investment.

Lower investment means lower growth.

Enter low employment, inflation and currency devaluation.

Yeah, and then you find yourself being a character in a Dickens novel. Those statements are quite correct and they would be relevant had we lived in the 19th century. The role of a modern government is however not maximizing the economic output at any cost. The role is maximizing the living quality of its citizens. And that includes reasonable work hours, solid vacations and social protection. That's shorter work hours and requires higher taxes.

Funny thing though in the end for instance Germany has a higher GDP/capita than Britain - despite their labour laws, higher taxes etc France's GDP/capita is roughly the same as Britain's. So what exactly is so successful with the British model?

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Increased labour laws and corporate taxation simply encourages inefficient and unprofitable business practise.

High tax and low working hours means lower profits.

Lower profits mean lower investment.

Lower investment means lower growth.

Enter low employment, inflation and currency devaluation.

Yeah, and then you find yourself being a character in a Dickens novel. Those statements are quite correct and they would be relevant had we lived in the 19th century. The role of a modern government is however not maximizing the economic output at any cost. The role is maximizing the living quality of its citizens. And that includes reasonable work hours, solid vacations and social protection. That's shorter work hours and requires higher taxes.

Funny thing though in the end for instance Germany has a higher GDP/capita than Britain - despite their labour laws, higher taxes etc France's GDP/capita is roughly the same as Britain's. So what exactly is so successful with the British model?

i fully agree ,and i can add to that.

Why would endless investment be so wise ,taking into account maybe an economy that cannot grow much anyway ,atleast or the volume of money you invest to be effeciant ,or for that matter that investment would automaticly mean increased labour?

Growth ,it's overestimated.One can invest a lot in new industry's ,but one can ask himself if these new industry's will add to increased sales with it's increased production in it's field ,or if it's simply going to replace or compete away existing bussiness thus meaning wasted investment.If there isn't increased demand from the consumer ,then investment in increased production is waste.

Furthermore ,with the ever increasing potential of automatization and informatization in the company investment can often mean replacing youre infrastructure as such that you actually need less employment to produce a same or higher amount ,thus youre investment effectivly decreases labour ,and thus also consumer demand.

They thought it was so wise to invest Billions to in whatever new IT company came up in the 90's ,until 2000 when the Nasdaq crashed and a staggering amount of capital just vanished in thin air.Company's close ,expected demand was just never reached ,and the investor's had cleaned debts for a decade with the thought that the company would ever be profitable.

Growth means atleast also stimmulating increased demand in youre home economy for product's ,thus creating room for growth.As thus ,it's important that as many people as possible in youre society has a healthy purchasing power.

Take into account the progress of automatization ,and lowering work hours over time becomes most wise ,because automatization will automaticly in the end mean a hughe replacement of human labour ,but also a hughe increase in effeciant production ,one has to be able to spread that abundance of production among it's citizen's but the citizin's need to engage in labour normally to have purchase power.With equal workhours to the present ,eventually the automatization will mean a decrease in labour ,when the work hours are decreased according to the progress of automatization in the economy then it will be possible to spread a increased amount of purchasing power for less hours work to most of the citizin's ,something that seems logical IMO in a industry with increased automatization.

I feel sorry though for those economy's that want to clinch on to their old ways in an technological era where automatization is increasingly replacing human labour ,either the economy will try to hold on to their old inneficiant production ,or theyll have by convential work hours a decreasing labour ,thus purchasing power or demand ,the rich will become even more rich ,but larger masses of society will become poor ,in a way America is already going into this direction.

Quote[/b] ]Enter low employment, inflation and currency devaluation.

HAH ,strange though that actually the euro is strong and inflation in the EU is low.Meanwhile in the USA ,the bastion of free investment ,inflation is skyrocketing and the dollar plummets.Oh yeah ,go decrease the interrest rate yet another bit.

[iNeo 0]

From the photo thread:

<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>nm</span>

<span style='font-size:7.05pt;line-height:100%'>Edited by denoir on June 07 2005,15:19</span>

I missed this, I assume it was aimed at me directly or indirectly?

Quote[/b] ]"We are demonstrating on behalf of all those who still believe in nationhood and race," said Per, a demonstrator who would only give his first name.

What a bunch of idiots. Including the ones supporting them by participating in the march and distributing the pics on an internet forum like this.

And yes, I do think that freedom of speech and the right to assemble at public places should be taken away from such idiots.

Yes nationhood is really idiotic... anyone supporting the idea of nationstates should be shut up..

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]I missed this, I assume it was aimed at me directly or indirectly?

Something about far-left and far-right should be allowed to air their views, or somthing like that.

[iNeo 0]

Quote[/b] ]I missed this, I assume it was aimed at me directly or indirectly?

Something about far-left and far-right should be allowed to air their views, or somthing like that.

Ah, thanks.