European Politics Thread.

[Ares1978 0]

I guess it´s best to let himself speak:

Quote[/b] ]I do agree with much of their thoughts since I'm a nationalist but not all of it.

Also, participating in a nazi demo does indeed throw a nazi light on you.

Taking this into the context of his previous posts about ideology and nation in general, foreigners in his country and all that there is little space to move in.

I think it's best to let himself speak, too. What he is saying there, is that he isn't a nazi, since he doesn't share their views. What more can there possibly be, that would be worth taking into consideration? It's a simple matter of ideologies, not what bystanders, who wouldn't know the difference between a nationalist and a national socialist even if you explained it to them, think.

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, I think every word lost on nazi idiots is a word too much and it only pestilates the air in here, so I will leave it up to the individual what to make of it.

I know where I stand and I hope others know that aswell.

I really hope you didn't just call me a nazi idiot as well. But ignoring that for a second here, when you argue with "nazi idiots", make sure you are better than them. Although I'm neither a nationalist nor a nazi, I think that some of your recent writings here have been too emotionally charged.

Bordoy,

I assume we are talking about neo-nazis here. And to quote that cess pool Wikipedia, "The terms Neo-Nazism and Neo-Fascism refer to any social or political movement seeking to revive Nazism (National Socialism) or Fascism, respectively, and postdates the Second World War."

[Donnervogel 0]

It *is* blackmail. The thing is, put in an undiplomatic manner, Switzerland is irrelevant to the EU. There's no need to be nice, the Union can basically impose whatever rules it wants and Switzerland can take it or leave it. The only ones it will really affect is the Swiss.

And that's the problem with staying outside. Switzerland for instance had no say in the writing of the Schengen treaty. Had you been involved in the European project, you would have had your voice. Now you are on the outside and too small to make a difference.

Anyway, you should probably do as the treaty says - remove your border controls. In terms of immigration, it won't make any difference. In terms of trade and transport, it will simplify things. And it's not like your neighbours are planning to invade you any time soon, right?

Edit: Actually, to be fair, you did make a difference to the EU this week. After the double rejection of the constitution it was nice with a "yes" for closer European cooperation.

Yeah Denoir basicly those are my points too. BUT the EU has certain (although rather small) advantages of having Switzerland in closer cooperation (money laundering prevention, etc.) so it should NOT get involved in our referendum in such a stupid way. Because they only destroy chances that we will agree to those things. Because they just confirmed the bullshit the right wing populists are saying to some people with that stupid move. Of course it is blackmailing. I walyway say that. It's stupid for us as long as we're not member of the EU because there is no way we can avoid trading/diplomacy with the EU: We're surrounded by the EU. We depend on their actions. And as long as we're not member we have to accept their rules to a certain extend without having influence on it. Because if they want they can easily destroy our economy.

But in order to get a factual debate going on about the threaties we need to prevent such fear tactics. Because fear is an instinct and people will always prefer instincts over reason when they're uncertain. So that was just a bullshit move from the EU to destroy the basis for a reasonable discussion about that referendum. I mean the EU could have had some advantages basicly for free if they just had let this referendum happen without such a stupid move of theirs. We have experience in handling referendums and so far we always managed to have a factual debate without fear tactics taking over too much.

I agree we should do as the threaty sais but as I told you before. Here we have our referendums and we know how to handle them. But when foreign powers try to influence our vote it renders the whole thing pointless. Because foreign influence always leads to strong counter reaction. Now the debate is not about "do we extend the liberty of movement on all 25 members?" but about "do you want to become a EU colony?". See what the problem is? How is yes camp supposed to win? I only hope we can turn this hysteria off before September.

IMHO referendums are a magnificent thing but they're a matter of internal politics. Foreign powers shall not try to influence this. Becuase then the things go wrong.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I really hope you didn't just call me a nazi idiot as well. But ignoring that for a second here, when you argue with "nazi idiots", make sure you are better than them. Although I'm neither a nationalist nor a nazi, I think that some of your recent writings here have been too emotionally charged.

No ! Why should I call you a nazi ?

Too emotional ? Maybe that´s true, but nazis just cause that effect in me as do extreme lefties. Why ? Because I had quite plenty of those experiences with nazies, be it at the job, be it at my living place or abroad in many countries and the common level they have is that everything that is not white/brown/dark...etc in color of skin is not worth living.

I met extremely stupid ones, I met some who attacked others for their color of skin, good friends got beaten up badly by nazi herds and ended up in hospital, a close female friend was beaten up because she dated with a turkish originating german, and over the years I have made my picture of them.

For sure it´s emotional but it´s not that you have to search hard for examples that nazis do no good and are no good.

[baff 0]

Quote[/b] ]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.

I absolutely see and understand your point.

I think your missing my point.

we can't compete globally as a "common market" if we aren't prepared to work harder for less money.

If your not intrested in doing what it takes to be part of an effective common market, then there really isn't any point in entering into one with you.

Further to this it is competely against the financial intrests of the British people to create any kind of competition with the U.S.  

Why on earth you might think the British people could be intrested in that sort of arrangement is beyond me.

If that is in any way your aim, once again, we're not the partners you are looking for.

Quote[/b] ]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.

I agree.

I don't need you to decide what is "reasonable" however.

Opinions differ, your welcome to your own. I'm perfectly happy with mine.

Since we clearly differ on exactly what they are, you'll perhaps understand why I don't wish to enter into any treaty on it with you.

(*)and creating increasingly favourable conditions for unemployment does that how?

Quote[/b] ]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?

GDP per capita 2004

Britain 119

France 111

Germany 109

http://www.finfacts.com/ireland....8.shtml

They are all pretty similar.

The employment rates differ quite substantially however.

You imply the French and German governments are protecting the rights of their workers by enforcing higher wages and lower work hours and "solid vacations", but all they are actually doing is driving business out of their countries completely.

(And I'm not talking about into other EU zones either). "Outsourcing" is the current buzzword.

What's better, jobs with less holidays and longer hours or no jobs?.

It is of note that 95% of GDP in any society is created by only 5% of the population. (Almost half of the employee's in Britain work for the government and create no GDP whatsoever).

The importance of high employment in a society is not so much the influx of GDP, but it's distribution throughout the population.

As for whats Britain is doing to make it so economically successful?

It's not what it's doing now, it's what it did 20 years ago.

I don't suppose it will last.

[denoir 0]

Further to this it is competely against the financial intrests of the British people to create any kind of competition with the U.S.  

Why on earth you might think the British people could be intrested in that sort of arrangement is beyond me.

If that is in any way your aim, once again, we're not the partners you are looking for.

Are you joking? You do know that Britain is involved in a shitload of pan-European companies, ranging from Airbus to Siemens. Your economy is completely tied to the European industry, which is in open competition with other giants such as the US.

Britain is nothing, absolutely nothing today on its own. The problem is that a good portion of your illiterate Sun reading population (which unfortunately for you are a significant demographic force) lives in some Victorian-era fantasy. What exactly do you think you have that you can sell? Do you honestly think that BAE can compete with Boeing and Airbus? Or that the Americans will have a sense of "fair play" and promote British products rather than their own American ones? The US has a more or less complete industry - they don't need you at all. At least in Europe you have some influence.

Quote[/b] ]I absolutely see and understand your point.

I think your missing my point.

we can't compete globally as a "common market" if we aren't prepared to work harder for less money.

Yes, in a perfect fair and market-driven world. It doesn't work that way however. It is size that matters, unless you are large enough, you're dead globally regardless of how hard you work. International economic deals are primarily about politics and reciprocal industrial arrangements (If you buy our Airplane, we'll build you a telecom system for half the price and grant you these loans...). The European countries are simply too small individually to make any difference. Alone, they have to live of the scraps of the larger economies and live with terms dictated by others.

Quote[/b] ]I agree.

I don't need you to decide what is "reasonable" however.

Opinions differ, your welcome to your own. I'm perfectly happy with mine.

Since we clearly differ on exactly what they are, you'll perhaps understand why I don't wish to enter into any treaty on it with you.

Ah well, but you see, you in Britain elected this guy Tony and we in Sweden elected this guy Göran to take care of the interest of our countries. And these guys meet on occasion and they seem to think it is a jolly good idea to increase cooperation. What you or I personally think is our private business. The politicians that the people have elected are doing the job they got a mandate for. That, you see, is called representative democracy.

Personally, I would not terribly mind Britain leaving the Union. I see you as more of an obstructive force. You are one of the three largest EU economies, so it is useful to have you as a partener, but I would not mind kicking you out for a while to teach you a lesson about the real world. Fortunately for you, the politicians in Europe are far more tolerant than I am.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]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?

GDP per capita 2004

Britain 119

France 111

Germany 109

http://www.finfacts.com/ireland....8.shtml

They are all pretty similar.

The employment rates differ quite substantially however.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap

Source: CIA World Factbook, March 2005

20. Germany $26214.12 per person

21. Sweden $25985.33 per person

22. France $25888.77 per person

23. Finland $25776.44 per person

24. United Kingdom $25426.55 per person

Or for a different set of numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...._capita

Apparently it depends on which method you use to calculate the GDP, but yes they are pretty similar - and that's my point exactly. You claim that the unemployment is hurting the economy, while the figures don't seem to indicate that. The French and German are earning as much money as you are and they have shorter work hours, longer vacation etc

Quote[/b] ]You imply the French and German governments are protecting the rights of their workers by enforcing higher wages and lower work hours and "solid vacations", but all they are actually doing is driving business out of their countries completely.

(And I'm not talking about into other EU zones either). "Outsourcing" is the current buzzword.

Yeah and that's mostly a load of bull. For instance about 8,000 jobs have been outsourced to the new member states. At the same time some 150,000 jobs were created due to the increased trade with those states. So the "outsourcing" scare is mostly a load of crap.

Quote[/b] ]What's better, jobs with less holidays and longer hours or no jobs?.

Well, let's see, what is better that you have a 5% lower unemployment or that 90% of your population get shorter hours and and more holidays.. geee, not a too difficult question, is it? Well, at least not if you care about your people, that is.

Quote[/b] ]As for whats Britain is doing to make it so economically successful?

It's not what it's doing now, it's what it did 20 years ago.

Yeah, 25 years to be precise, when you joined the common market. You owe your "success" to the European Community. The relative performance to the other large EU states (growth of 3.5% instead of 2% and unemployment of 5% instead of 8%) is because you are screwing your population out of benefits that other Europeans have).

[der bastler 0]

we can't compete globally as a "common market" if we aren't prepared to work harder for less money.

If your not intrested in doing what it takes to be part of an effective common market, then there really isn't any point in entering into one with you.

[...]

What's better, jobs with less holidays and longer hours or no jobs?.

Well, all power to the market?

It's fun to see how social rights -- implemented over decades as a result of social progress -- are dumped for an "effective market". How people who are affected by this stab each others into their backs...

Just one remark: People with less free time and less money will consume less -- choking the internal market...

[denoir 0]

I'm really getting worried about Britain. First their "anti-terror" law that allows the Home Secretary to put people under house arrest without charging them with anything and now this:

Religious hatred bill is unveiled [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

Controversial plans to make incitement to religious hatred illegal are being unveiled by the government.  Critics say the re-introduced bill - which bans insulting words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up religious hatred - will stifle free speech.

But ministers have pledged the new law will not affect "criticism, commentary or ridicule of faiths".

If it mirrors racial hatred laws, the maximum sentence for those found guilty will be seven years in prison. The bill will apply to comments made in public or in the media, as well as through written material.

Freedom of speech

The government says the legislation is a response to the concerns of faith groups, particularly Muslims.

The Muslim Council of Britain has welcomed the move, arguing that the courts have already extended such protection to Sikh and Jewish people.

Sher Khan, a council spokesman, said to protect some groups but not others contravened the European Convention on Human Rights.

"This is not protection of faith, it is a protection of those who are attached to a particular identity marker," Mr Khan said.

Rabbi Jacqueline Tabick, chairwoman of the World Congress of Faith, also said the legislation was necessary.

A bill introduced prior to the general election was opposed in the House of Lords, with some peers claiming it was an assault on freedom of speech. Keith Porteous Wood, of the National Secular Society, also said the legislation would curtail free expression.

Similar laws in Australia had stirred up tensions between different religious groups, he argued.

Comedy threat?

BBC home affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford said some British Muslims believed religions must be allowed to criticise each other, and that the proposed new law could open a Pandora's box of prosecutions between faiths.

However, he added: "Followers of different religions will be allowed to criticise each other, but they will not be allowed to use insulting behaviour that is likely to stir up hatred."

Actor Rowan Atkinson is among those to have spoken out against the proposed new law, arguing comedians could be at risk of prosecution for lampooning religious figures. Home Office ministers say this is not the point of the legislation.

I really hope the opponents of this bill will appeal to the European Court of Justice as it seems to me as a clear violation of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[baff 0]

Further to this it is competely against the financial intrests of the British people to create any kind of competition with the U.S.  

Why on earth you might think the British people could be intrested in that sort of arrangement is beyond me.

If that is in any way your aim, once again, we're not the partners you are looking for.

Are you joking? You do know that Britain is involved in a shitload of pan-European companies, ranging from Airbus to Siemens. Your economy is completely tied to the European industry, which is in open competition with other giants such as the US.

Britain is nothing, absolutely nothing today on its own. The problem is that a good portion of your illiterate Sun reading population (which unfortunately for you are a significant demographic force) lives in some Victorian-era fantasy. What exactly do you think you have that you can sell? Do you honestly think that BAE can compete with Boeing and Airbus? Or that the Americans will have a sense of "fair play" and promote British products rather than their own American ones? The US has a more or less complete industry - they don't need you at all. At least in Europe you have some influence.

No i'm not joking. BAE is peanuts compared to what we earn from the U.S. We could throw BAE in the rubbish bin.

(BAE is half owned by Boeing? or Lockheed Martin?, it's not an especially competitive company but we have a large enough military to keep it in orders. Most of BAE's foreign orders come from America, Arabia and India).

All of our European trade added together does not come close to our income derived from the U.S.

You have a misrepresentative idea of how Britain makes it's money. Foreign trade is important to us, but it's not top of the list.

Britain is a banking nation. (note the traditionally high intrest rates and strong pound). We don't make our money from trade. (othewis we would have a lower valued economy to capital;ise on that and lower intrest rates to promote start ups).

We make it from investing. (From stock markets, insurance, money markets, global free trade, pension funds, futures, underwriting and shipping).

Most of that money is invested in America.

We own American business. Those companies that you wish to compete with belong to us. Twice a year they send us our share of their profits. (And each month they pay us our banking fee's).

(It's nothing to do with loving or trusting the yanks, they are massively unpopular here. We are still financially in bed with them. i understand that this is not very fashionable, but with the $ so weak I can't even (profitably) sell up and re-invest elsewhere currently. As much as I would like to see them with a bloody nose, I would much rather retire with my pension intact).

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I absolutely see and understand your point.

I think your missing my point.

we can't compete globally as a "common market" if we aren't prepared to work harder for less money.

Yes, in a perfect fair and market-driven world. It doesn't work that way however. It is size that matters, unless you are large enough, you're dead globally regardless of how hard you work. International economic deals are primarily about politics and reciprocal industrial arrangements (If you buy our Airplane, we'll build you a telecom system for half the price and grant you these loans...). The European countries are simply too small individually to make any difference. Alone, they have to live of the scraps of the larger economies and live with terms dictated by others.

Quote[/b] ]I agree.

I don't need you to decide what is "reasonable" however.

Opinions differ, your welcome to your own. I'm perfectly happy with mine.

Since we clearly differ on exactly what they are, you'll perhaps understand why I don't wish to enter into any treaty on it with you.

Ah well, but you see, you in Britain elected this guy Tony and we in Sweden elected this guy Göran to take care of the interest of our countries. And these guys meet on occasion and they seem to think it is a jolly good idea to increase cooperation. What you or I personally think is our private business. The politicians that the people have elected are doing the job they got a mandate for. That, you see, is called representative democracy.

It's not just what I think, it's what we think. Tony Blair is replaceable. He likes his job. He knows full well that the instant he tries for further European integration, thats the day he will be replaced. Hence he is referendum dodging. (Has been for the last 8 years)

Tony Blair is intrinsically aware of British public opinion on Europe and his Chancellor is also aware of the finacial problems.

We did vote him in, but on the specific condition that he would give us a referendum on both the Euro and the EU constitution. The reason he has refused to bring those referendums, is that he knows they cannot be won here.

Tony Blair is a very weak leader currently he is unable to make any contraversial decisions without triggering a leadership challenge. The European issue (and the finacial troubles brought on by trying to join the Euro), put paid to the previous government and Mr Blair's tactic has simply been to repestedly refuse to face the issue until "after the next election".

Of course he thinks it is a good idea. What european leader doesn't want to be the first "President of Europe"? The Abraham Lincoln of the 21st century?

Quote[/b] ]

Personally, I would not terribly mind Britain leaving the Union. I see you as more of an obstructive force. You are one of the three largest EU economies, so it is useful to have you as a partener, but I would not mind kicking you out for a while to teach you a lesson about the real world. Fortunately for you, the politicians in Europe are far more tolerant than I am.

i'll drink to that.

i'll buy the first round too if you'll join me.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]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?

GDP per capita 2004

Britain 119

France 111

Germany 109

http://www.finfacts.com/ireland....8.shtml

They are all pretty similar.

The employment rates differ quite substantially however.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap

Source: CIA World Factbook, March 2005

20. Germany $26214.12 per person  

21. Sweden $25985.33 per person  

22. France $25888.77 per person

23. Finland $25776.44 per person  

24. United Kingdom $25426.55 per person

Or for a different set of numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...._capita

Apparently it depends on which method you use to calculate the GDP, but yes they are pretty similar - and that's my point exactly. You claim that the unemployment is hurting the economy, while the figures don't seem to indicate that. The French and German are earning as much money as you are and</b> they have shorter work hours, longer vacation etc

As nations we earning similar amounts.

I don't claim that unemployment is hurting the economy, I claim that it is hurting society

Here in Britain we can afford a much higher unemployment rate and still make our money just the same.

The problem here is the distribution of that money throughout society. Rather than just give people money for doing nothing in hard times we hire them to do "public works". Public spending has grown by 10% in the last 8 years to balance out the global downturn.

P.S. I agree about the nature of statistics wholeheartedly. I posted the first one I found on a google search for "capita Europe gdp"

I would much rather conceed any point than spend my life googling for different results. (you are a wise and talented a man. A pleasure to debate with).

Quote ]

Quote[/b] ]You imply the French and German governments are protecting the rights of their workers by enforcing higher wages and lower work hours and "solid vacations", but all they are actually doing is driving business out of their countries completely.

(And I'm not talking about into other EU zones either). "Outsourcing" is the current buzzword.

Yeah and that's mostly a load of bull. For instance about 8,000 jobs have been outsourced to the new member states. At the same time some 150,000 jobs were created due to the increased trade with those states. So the "outsourcing" scare is mostly a load of crap.

I seem to remember visiting a BMW factory in South Africa once and they make Volkswagon in Mexico. Thats about  as much as I know about German outsourcing.

In Britain most of our industry has been outsourced for some time. We haven't made anything here for years. Call centres in India is the latest fashion. Formerly they were seen as the saviour of unemployment hotspots like Wales.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]What's better, jobs with less holidays and longer hours or no jobs?.

Well, let's see, what is better that you have a 5% lower unemployment or that 90% of your population get shorter hours and and more holidays.. geee, not a too difficult question, is it? Well, at least not if you care about your people, that is.

For those 5% it is yes. Thats 5% of the population that couldn't afford holidays at all previously.

5% of the population who were formerly poor.

(We are a social society too. We just do it differently).

You want to have your cake and eat it. You want to get paid more than the jobs worth, go home early and have a great holiday.

And if the boss argues the workforce in France and Germany goes on strike,( not just that companies workforce, but the whole nation). The company losses more money,(as does  every company in the nation), and then when the factories close the workforce cry about the government not doing enough to get them investment.

The british model is to take the unions on head on and break them. Thats the labour reform we did here 20 odd years ago.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]As for whats Britain is doing to make it so economically successful?

It's not what it's doing now, it's what it did 20 years ago.

Yeah, 25 years to be precise, when you joined the common market. You owe your "success" to the European Community. The relative performance to the other large EU states (growth of 3.5% instead of 2% and unemployment of 5% instead of 8%) is because you are screwing your population out of benefits that other Europeans have).

There is much too much self congratulation going on in Britain currently. talking of self congratulation, do you really beleive that the Germans and French made Britain rich in the last 20 years?

LMAO.

Nonetheless we have been growing faster than anyone else in the EU.

Who would have though our economies would be considered on a par with Those of France or Germany 20 years ago?

Our population will take those "benefits" as they can afford them as individuals, not inflexibly as the state demands.

Our populations don't feel "screwed out of their benefits", they feel richer than they have ever been.

They feel like Home owners. With cars. And DVD players. And Broadband. And  bigger cars. And TV's in every bedroom. Widescreen TV's. I-pods. Nvidia and ATI's in every home!

And you are still misinterpreting the source of British income.

half of all foreign trade is in the Euro zone, but we don't do a lot of trade. Further to this, the trade we actually do is in defecit. We buy far more goods from Europe than we sell there. It is us that makes you rich, not the other way round.

Our favourite goods come from China, they are so cheap we can afford many of them. This more than anything else raises our standard of living.

So signing up to an EU wide protectionism against Chinese goods, (many of which made in British sponsored factories),  would directly hurt the pockets of each and every British citizen.

[denoir 0]

Britain is a banking nation. (note the traditionally high intrest rates and strong pound). We don't make our money from trade. (othewis we would have a lower valued economy to capital;ise on that and lower intrest rates to promote start ups).

We make it from investing. (From stock markets, insurance, money markets, global free trade, pension funds, futures, underwriting and shipping).

Quote[/b] ]

Labour force composition

services 46%

government 28%

manufacturing/construction 24%

energy 1%

agriculture 1%

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....tistics

UK is an important financial center in Europe. The Americans have their own financial services. As for US investments, you do have a point there, but it is a bit more complicated than that.

Your banks and financial institutions are owned largely by Germans. Britain is used as a hub for transatlantic investments, but that doesn't mean that the money that you invest is actually yours to keep.

Quote[/b] ]Of course he thinks it is a good idea. What european leader doesn't want to be the first "President of Europe"? The Abraham Lincoln of the 21st century?

LOL, what on earth makes you think anybody would elect Blair as the "President of Europe"? Perhaps you haven't noticed but Blair is not very popular in Europe and overall Britain is not exactly charming its way around the EU by obstructing the integration process. The chaotic proposed constitution is not to a small degree the result of a bunch of demands imposed by Britain.

Quote[/b] ]i'll drink to that.

i'll buy the first round too if you'll join me.

It's a deal   You have to however promise to withdraw completely, at least from the political part of the Union. The current solution is no good. We need a coherent common system, and it ain't going to happen while you are pushing for your quite different ideas. We have trouble enough with the differences between the states that want closer integration.

Quote[/b] ]

There is much too much self congratulation going on in Britain currently. talking of self congratulation, do you really beleive that the Germans and French made Britain rich in the last 20 years?

LMAO.

Absolutely, the common market suits any state that has a trade imbalance. Without the free trade agreement, import and export fees are slapped on by both trade sides. As Britain buys its stuff from continental Europe, it would have been far more expensive for you with various import fees.

Quote[/b] ]Nonetheless we have been growing faster than anyone else in the EU.

Not true really. First of all the new 10 member states have all a higher growth. Second, the Nordic countries are doing quite well too. There is a significant difference between France and Germany on one side and the UK on the other. (1-2% growth compared to 3-4% growth).

Quote[/b] ]Who would have though our economies would be considered on a par with Those of France or Germany 20 years ago?

Why not? They took more beating than you during WW2. Is there a reason why your economy shouldn't be equal theirs?

Quote[/b] ]

Our population will take those "benefits" as they can afford them as individuals, not inflexibly as the state demands.

Our populations don't feel "screwed out of their benefits", they feel richer than they have ever been.

They feel like Home owners. With cars. And DVD players. And Broadband. And  bigger cars. And TV's in every bedroom. Widescreen TV's. I-pods. Nvidia and ATI's in every home!

And you don't think the other EU states have all that? It's just a question of how the money is circulated. It makes little difference if an employer gives you pay or if you get it from the government. On the contrary, as there are fewer poor people, more people can afford such products.

Ok, let's take a look at some stats. You mention Broadband:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/int_bro_acc

Or for more recent:

http://www.parliament.uk/post/nfr/pn181.pdf (Look under "International Comparison". Of Sweden, Germany, France, US and UK, you come last. So that isn't very convincing.

Ok, how about TV's per capita:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/med_tel_cap

Not so impressive either. (Not a bad thing though IMO!)

What about PC's per capita?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/med_per_com_cap

Well, slightly better than Germany, but significantly worse than the über-socialist Scandinavian countries.

What about cars?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/tra_car

Well, not so good.

And finally the most important metric, annual average beer consumption  

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lif_bee_con

Ranked sixth in Europe, sad state of affairs, really.  

Anyway, you do have a point about your economy being more tied to the US than to Europe when it comes to investments. There is however a very relevant factor that I think you are missing. With the US, you'll be nothing more but a trade partner. You are not big enough to have significant influence on their industry so basically you have to follow the terms that they dictate. Within EU on the other hand, you do have influence as one of the largest member states. So if you wish to have a say it would be reasonable to start transferring your investments to Europe.

The same goes for foreign policy. Alone, you are too small and weak to make a significant difference. So you have the choice of either following the US or help leading the EU.

But you have to make up your mind. The current solution is no good as you are obstructing the integration process that so many other member states want.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

An interesting point of view on the issues of immigration and its relation to apparent problems with the 'social model' can be found in this article by David Goodhart (published in the Guardian) in which he argues that the concern over immigrants and the concern over european social systems are strongly linked phenomena (i wont paste the whole thing here because its looong even for my posts)

The discomfort of strangers (part one)

And

Discomfort of strangers (part two)

Quote[/b] ]Britain in the 50s was a country stratified by class and region. But in most of its cities, suburbs, towns and villages there was a good chance of predicting the attitudes, even the behaviour, of the people living in your immediate neighbourhood.

In many parts of Britain today that is no longer true. The country has long since ceased to be Orwell's "family" (albeit with the wrong members in charge).

To some people this is a cause of regret and disorientation - a change that they associate with the growing incivility of modern urban life. To others it is a sign of the inevitable, and welcome, march of modernity. After three centuries of homogenisation through industrialisation, urbanisation, nation-building and war, the British have become freer and more varied. Fifty years of peace, wealth and mobility have allowed a greater diversity in lifestyles and values. To this "value diversity" has been added ethnic diversity through two big waves of immigration: the mainly Commonwealth immigration from the West Indies and Asia in the 1950s and 1960s, followed by asylum-driven migrants from Europe, Africa and the greater Middle East in the late 1990s.

The diversity, individualism and mobility that characterise developed economies - especially in the era of globalisation - mean that more of our lives is spent among strangers. Ever since the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago, humans have been used to dealing with people from beyond their own extended kin groups. The difference now in a developed country such as Britain is that we not only live among stranger citizens but we must share with them. We share public services and parts of our income in the welfare state, we share public spaces in towns and cities where we are squashed together on buses, trains and tubes, and we share in a democratic conversation - filtered by the media - about the collective choices we wish to make. All such acts of sharing are more smoothly and generously negotiated if we can take for granted a limited set of common values and assumptions. But as Britain becomes more diverse that common culture is being eroded.

And therein lies one of the central dilemmas of political life in developed societies: sharing and solidarity can conflict with diversity. This is an especially acute dilemma for progressives who want plenty of both solidarity (high social cohesion and generous welfare paid out of a progressive tax system) and diversity (equal respect for a wide range of peoples, values and ways of life). The tension between the two values is a reminder that serious politics is about trade-offs. It also suggests that the left's recent love affair with diversity may come at the expense of the values and even the people that it once championed.

...Thinking about the conflict between solidarity and diversity is another way of asking a question as old as human society itself: who is my brother, with whom do I share mutual obligations? The traditional conservative, Burkean view is that our affinities ripple out from our families and localities to the nation, and not very far beyond. That view is pitted against a liberal universalist one that sees us in some sense equally obligated to all human beings, from Bolton to Burundi - an idea that is associated with the universalist aspects of Christianity and Islam, with Kantian universalism and with left-wing internationalism. Science is neutral in this dispute, or rather it stands on both sides of the argument. Evolutionary psychology stresses both the universality of most human traits and - through the notion of kin selection and reciprocal altruism - the instinct to favour our own. Social psychologists also argue that the tendency to perceive in-groups and out-groups, however ephemeral, is innate. In any case, Burkeans claim to have common sense on their side. They argue that we feel more comfortable with, and are readier to share with and sacrifice for, those with whom we have shared histories and similar values. To put it bluntly - most of us prefer our own kind.

The category "own kind", or in-group, will set alarm bells ringing in the minds of many readers. So it is worth stressing what preferring our own kind does not mean, even for a Burkean. It does not mean that we are necessarily hostile to other kinds or that we cannot empathise with outsiders. (There are those who do dislike other kinds, but in Britain they seem to be quite a small minority.) In complex societies, most of us belong simultaneously to many in-groups - family, profession, class, hobby, locality, nation - and an ability to move with ease between groups is a sign of maturity. An in-group is not, except in the case of families, a natural or biological category and the people who are deemed to belong to it can change quickly, as we saw so disastrously in Bosnia. Certainly, those we include in our in-group could be a pretty diverse crowd, especially in a city such as London.

Moreover, modern liberal societies cannot be based on a simple assertion of group identity - the very idea of the rule of law, of equal legal treatment for everyone regardless of religion, wealth, gender or ethnicity, conflicts with it. On the other hand, if you deny the assumption that humans are social, group-based primates with constraints, however imprecise, on their willingness to share, you find yourself having to defend some implausible positions: for example, that we should spend as much on development aid as on the NHS, or that Britain should have no immigration controls at all. The implicit "calculus of affinity" in media reporting of disasters is easily mocked - two dead Britons will get the same space as 200 Spaniards or 2,000 Somalis. Yet every day we make similar calculations in the distribution of our own resources. Even a well-off, liberal-minded Briton who already donates to charities will spend, say, Å200 on a child's birthday party, knowing that such money could, in the right hands, save the life of a child in the third world. The extent of our obligation to those to whom we are not connected through either kinship or citizenship is in part a purely private, charitable decision. But it also has policy implications, and not just in the field of development aid. For example, significant NHS resources are spent each year on foreign visitors, especially in London. Many of us might agree in theory that the needs of desperate outsiders are often greater than our own. But we would object if our own parent or child received inferior treatment because of resources consumed by non-citizens.

Is it possible to reconcile these observations about human preferences with our increasingly open, fluid and value-diverse societies? At one level, yes. Our liberal democracies still work fairly well; indeed it is one of the achievements of modernity that people have learned to tolerate and share with people very unlike themselves. (Until the 20th century, today's welfare state would have been considered contrary to human nature.) On the other hand, the logic of solidarity, with its tendency to draw boundaries, and the logic of diversity, with its tendency to cross them, do at times pull apart. Thanks to the erosion of collective norms and identities, in particular of class and nation, and the recent surge of immigration into Europe, this may be such a time.

...But is there any hard evidence that the progressive dilemma actually exists in the real world of political and social choices? In most EU states the percentage of GDP taken in tax is still at historically high levels, despite the increase in diversity of all kinds. Yet it is also true that Scandinavian countries with the biggest welfare states have been the most socially and ethnically homogeneous states in the west. By the same token, the welfare state has always been weaker in the individualistic, ethnically divided US compared with more homogeneous Europe. And the three bursts of welfarist legislation that the US did see - Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry Truman's Fair Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society - came during the long pause in mass immigration between the first world war and 1968. (They were also, clearly, a response to the depression and to two world wars.)

In their 2001 Harvard Institute of Economic Research paper "Why Doesn't the US Have a European-style Welfare State?", Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote argue that the answer is that too many people at the bottom of the pile in the US are black or Hispanic. Across the US as a whole, 70% of the population are non-Hispanic whites - but of those in poverty only 46% are non-Hispanic whites. So a disproportionate amount of tax income spent on welfare is going to minorities. The paper also finds that US states that are more ethnically fragmented than average spend less on social services. The authors conclude that Americans think of the poor as members of a different group, whereas Europeans still think of the poor as members of the same group. Robert Putnam, the analyst of social capital, has also found a link between high ethnic mix and low trust in the US. There is some British evidence supporting this link, too. Researchers at Mori found that the average level of satisfaction with local authorities declines steeply as the extent of ethnic fragmentation increases. Even allowing for the fact that areas of high ethnic mix tend to be poorer, Mori found that ethnic fractionalisation still had a substantial negative impact on attitudes to local government.

Finally, Sweden and Denmark may provide a social laboratory for the solidarity/diversity trade-off in the coming years. Starting from similar positions as homogeneous countries with high levels of redistribution, they have taken rather different approaches to immigration over the past few years. Although both countries place great stress on integrating outsiders, Sweden has adopted a moderately multicultural outlook. It has also adapted its economy somewhat, reducing job protection for older native males in order to create more low-wage jobs for immigrants in the public sector. About 12% of Swedes are now foreign-born, and it is expected that by 2015 about 25% of under-18s will be either foreign-born or the children of the foreign-born. This is a radical change and Sweden is adapting to it rather well. (The first clips of mourning Swedes after the murder of the foreign minister Anna Lindh were of crying immigrants expressing their sorrow in perfect Swedish.) But not all Swedes are happy about it.

Denmark has a more restrictive and "nativist" approach to immigration. Only 6% of the population is foreign-born, and native Danes enjoy superior welfare benefits to incomers. If the solidarity/diversity trade-off is a real one and current trends continue, then one would expect in, say, 20 years that Sweden will have a less redistributive welfare state than Denmark; or rather that Denmark will have a more developed two-tier welfare state with higher benefits for insiders, while Sweden will have a universal but less generous system.

What are the main objections, at least from the left, to this argument about solidarity and diversity? Multiculturalists stress Britain's multiple diversities, of class and region, that preceded recent waves of immigration. They also argue that all humans share similar needs and a common interest in ensuring that they are met with minimum conflict; this, they say, can now be done through human rights laws. And hostility to diversity, they conclude, is usually a form of "false consciousness".

...The "thickest" solidarities are now often found among ethnic minority groups themselves in response to real or perceived discrimination. This can be another source of resentment for poor whites who look on enviously from their own fragmented neighbourhoods as minorities recreate some of the mutual support and sense of community that was once a feature of British working-class life. Paradoxically, it may be this erosion of feelings of mutuality among the white majority in Britain that has made it easier to absorb minorities. The degree of antagonism between groups is proportional to the degree of cooperation within groups. Relative to the other big European nations, the British sense of national culture and solidarity has arguably been rather weak - diluted by class, empire, the four different nations within the state, the north-south divide, and even the long shadow of American culture. That weakness of national solidarity, exemplified by the "stand-offishness" of suburban England, may have created a bulwark against extreme nationalism. We are more tolerant than, say, France because we don't care enough about each other to resent the arrival of the other.

When solidarity and diversity pull against each other, which side should public policy favour? Diversity can increasingly look after itself - the underlying drift of social and economic development favours it. Solidarity, on the other hand, thrives at times of adversity, hence its high point just after the second world war and its steady decline ever since as affluence, mobility, value diversity and (in some areas) immigration have loosened the ties of a common culture. Public policy should therefore tend to favour solidarity in four broad areas.

...People will always favour their own families and communities; it is the task of a realistic liberalism to strive for a definition of community that is wide enough to include people from many different backgrounds, without being so wide as to become meaningless.

Those are just some extracts (the whole thing is quite readable, if on the long side). I disagree with some of this guys conclusions (in the second part) but i think his analysis of the problems facing western europe is not so far off. Without something of a US 'melting pot' (which according to him is one of the reasons for, or necessitates

lower welfare spending in the US) european countries are in danger of a slow destruction of (percieved) 'national identity', and concomitant feelings of solidarity, in more multicultural areas and increasing resistance to changes affecting that sense of solidarity in more homogeneous areas (or an unwillingness to finance or play a part in such changes). This seems to provide some explanation for the rise of right wing nationalism is europe (and the Polish plumber effect), as well as playing a part in the resistance of France and Germany to what they see as an erosion of their sense of national solidarity (being under threat from multiculturalism already). The article also offers some fairly coherent explanations for the relative lack of national 'solidarity' in the UK (and its not simply the Thatcher era to blame), even though it is in many respects not more or less than an average large european country (as compared to North America).

[edit- Damn, dont know if ill have time to reply to everything id like to here]

[iNeo 0]

The quote is from the internet invitation to the march.

It certainly is not! None of your quotes are - they are all from this article, where your quote is ended with "...one of the groups, National Opposition, states on its website". The internet invitation is at nationaldagen.nu and it doesn't have an English translation. What are you lying for?

Quote[/b] ]Marching in the train doesn't make you a nazi

For sure it does.

Hell no it doesn't, and once again - it wasn't even a nazi march, but there were some nazis in it. Except for that, I'll just refer to Ares' posts.

Quote[/b] ]All in all, I walked next to a nationalistic march and you call me not only nazi scum but also idiot - well, fuck you.

First of all this is not true as I wrote:

Quote[/b] ]Nazis are scum, I don´t mind what "indepth" thoughts they have.

So either you declared yourself a Nazi now as you take this on you, or you can´t transport content from one page to another.

In the photography thread you wrote;

"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 in this thread, later than the post I'm replying to now;

"participating in a nazi demo does indeed throw a nazi light on you.

Taking this into the context of his previous posts about ideology and nation in general, foreigners in his country and all that there is little space to move in.

Anyway, I think every word lost on nazi idiots is a word too much"

And here you're trying to say that you DON'T consider me "nazi scum"?

[Necromancer- 0]

I believe that everyone has the right to have any kind of opinion.. wether it'll be muslim-extremist, neo-nazi or christian and a right to have a counter-opinion on any other opinion.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Considering my morals and my sense of democracy I would agree. But there are ideas which have proven highly dangerous in the past. And dont forget that certain political groups on the one hand use the rights of democracy (free speech) but on the other aim to destroy them.

I find it quite amusing to see Nazis demonstrating even though if they would be in power the first thing they would do is to get rid of them.

iNeo, in my eyes you just lost a lot of the honourable credit you once had. Even if you dont sympathise with "all" or "most" of their ideas... I would leave any demonstration that only a few Nazis would try to join. You did not. Dont forget that those ideas are probably the reason for many of our and your relatives deaths!

[iNeo 0]

Will everyone just stop taking me for a hateful nazi, cause I'm not one, and I certainly don't like the holocaust or war for expansion, or believe there is a master race, hate gays and paralyzed people, usw.

One people - one country. That's all.

iNeo, in my eyes you just lost a lot of the honourable credit you once had.

Sorry you feel that way.

[Supah 0]

Considering my morals and my sense of democracy I would agree. But there are ideas which have proven highly dangerous in the past. And dont forget that certain political groups on the one hand use the rights of democracy (free speech) but on the other aim to destroy them.

I find it quite amusing to see Nazis demonstrating even though if they would be in power the first thing they would do is to get rid of them.

And you would act like them and take that right away from them? I am against all forms of nazisme too, but man, democracy doesnt only apply if it suits you. If you want everyone to have freedom of speech that should apply to everyone! Besides, crackpots like nazi's will remain a minority like they always have been post ww2. having a "Cordon Sanitair" only gives a robin hood air to them and brings the weak minded to them. Take it from a dutchmen, the weak minded are a force to be kept out of politics at all costs.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]It certainly is not! None of your quotes are - they are all from this article, where your quote is ended with "...one of the groups, National Opposition, states on its website". The internet invitation is at nationaldagen.nu and it doesn't have an English translation. What are you lying for?

Bull. I took the quotes from two different sources and also searched for an online service to translate the initial content of the National Opposition page, but found none and therefore used the press releases on it. Well, I don´t think they made anything up there. Do you want to tell me now that they were no Nazis or what ?

If I look at the pictures I see a lot of skinheads in the crowd, no the crowd mainly consits of them and people in bomber-jackets, so I don´t think that the regular swedish citizen took his kids to the train...

Quote[/b] ]Hell no it doesn't, and once again - it wasn't even a nazi march, but there were some nazis in it. Except for that, I'll just refer to Ares' posts.

See above and countercheck your pics.

Quote[/b] ]In the photography thread you wrote;

"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 in this thread, later than the post I'm replying to now;

"participating in a nazi demo does indeed throw a nazi light on you.

Taking this into the context of his previous posts about ideology and nation in general, foreigners in his country and all that there is little space to move in.

Anyway, I think every word lost on nazi idiots is a word too much"

And here you're trying to say that you DON'T consider me "nazi scum"?

No you said, that I called you Nazi Scum , which is infact not true unless you list yourself with the Nazis.

What I consider you is my little private secret.

Quote[/b] ]One people - one country.

That means ?

The Neo in your name gets a funny touch also when you think about it...

[Donnervogel 0]

And you would act like them and take that right away from them? I am against all forms of nazisme too, but man, democracy doesnt only apply if it suits you. If you want everyone to have freedom of speech that should apply to everyone! Besides, crackpots like nazi's will remain a minority like they always have been post ww2. having a "Cordon Sanitair" only gives a robin hood air to them and brings the weak minded to them. Take it from a dutchmen, the weak minded are a force to be kept out of politics at all costs.

But remember that freedom of speech is not an absolute right and also not the only right/law there is. One thing that ususally is granted together with freedom of speech is some discrimination protection. That means the Nazis are free to speek as long as they don't violate other laws. So if they speak in a way that would encourage their followers to discriminate foreigners for example they are not on safe ground with their freedom of speech. It's ususally hard to tell when the limit is passed but one thing is clear. Even though you are free to express your opinions you still have to respect other laws. And that's why I say such groups or idividuals must be monitored and when they go one step to far they shall be punished. Because another thing is also clear. They have goals that are not compatible with the law in most countries. Their intetion is to do bad to the existing organisation. So they shall not be thrated friendly. Only legal.

[Supah 0]

And you would act like them and take that right away from them? I am against all forms of nazisme too, but man, democracy doesnt only apply if it suits you. If you want everyone to have freedom of speech that should apply to everyone! Besides, crackpots like nazi's will remain a minority like they always have been post ww2. having a "Cordon Sanitair" only gives a robin hood air to them and brings the weak minded to them. Take it from a dutchmen, the weak minded are a force to be kept out of politics at all costs.

But remember that freedom of speech is not an absolute right and also not the only right/law there is. One thing that ususally is granted together with freedom of speech is some discrimination protection. That means the Nazis are free to speek as long as they don't violate other laws. So if they speak in a way that would encourage their followers to discriminate foreigners for example they are not on safe ground with their freedom of speech. It's ususally hard to tell when the limit is passed but one thing is clear. Even though you are free to express your opinions you still have to respect other laws. And that's why I say such groups or idividuals must be monitored and when they go one step to far they shall be punished. Because another thing is also clear. They have goals that are not compatible with the law in most countries. Their intetion is to do bad to the existing organisation. So they shall not be thrated friendly. Only legal.

Maybe where you come from and I understand why. Not in any way insulting. "The war" is in the past and lets by all means keep it there, but it is part of our past. I can see why certain legislation came into being. But you can't fight tiranny with tirannies tools.

[Donnervogel 0]

And you would act like them and take that right away from them? I am against all forms of nazisme too, but man, democracy doesnt only apply if it suits you. If you want everyone to have freedom of speech that should apply to everyone! Besides, crackpots like nazi's will remain a minority like they always have been post ww2. having a "Cordon Sanitair" only gives a robin hood air to them and brings the weak minded to them. Take it from a dutchmen, the weak minded are a force to be kept out of politics at all costs.

But remember that freedom of speech is not an absolute right and also not the only right/law there is. One thing that ususally is granted together with freedom of speech is some discrimination protection. That means the Nazis are free to speek as long as they don't violate other laws. So if they speak in a way that would encourage their followers to discriminate foreigners for example they are not on safe ground with their freedom of speech. It's ususally hard to tell when the limit is passed but one thing is clear. Even though you are free to express your opinions you still have to respect other laws. And that's why I say such groups or idividuals must be monitored and when they go one step to far they shall be punished. Because another thing is also clear. They have goals that are not compatible with the law in most countries. Their intetion is to do bad to the existing organisation. So they shall not be thrated friendly. Only legal.

Maybe where you come from and I understand why. Not in any way insulting. "The war" is in the past and lets by all means keep it there, but it is part of our past. I can see why certain legislation came into being. But you can't fight tiranny with tirannies tools.

Erm, wake up buddy. The Neo nazis want to bring "the war" back - as you call it. Besides the war in only 60 years ago. There is no reason why it could't happen again. Especially if we don't take those groups serious that want to smash our democracy.

Good example. The French overthrew a monarchy in 1848 because they were fed up with one person ruling the whole country. So they imposed a Republic. 1852 They were an Empire again. Uhmm... people forget quite fast. But someone with a goal doesn't.

[Supah 0]

And you would act like them and take that right away from them? I am against all forms of nazisme too, but man, democracy doesnt only apply if it suits you. If you want everyone to have freedom of speech that should apply to everyone! Besides, crackpots like nazi's will remain a minority like they always have been post ww2. having a "Cordon Sanitair" only gives a robin hood air to them and brings the weak minded to them. Take it from a dutchmen, the weak minded are a force to be kept out of politics at all costs.

But remember that freedom of speech is not an absolute right and also not the only right/law there is. One thing that ususally is granted together with freedom of speech is some discrimination protection. That means the Nazis are free to speek as long as they don't violate other laws. So if they speak in a way that would encourage their followers to discriminate foreigners for example they are not on safe ground with their freedom of speech. It's ususally hard to tell when the limit is passed but one thing is clear. Even though you are free to express your opinions you still have to respect other laws. And that's why I say such groups or idividuals must be monitored and when they go one step to far they shall be punished. Because another thing is also clear. They have goals that are not compatible with the law in most countries. Their intetion is to do bad to the existing organisation. So they shall not be thrated friendly. Only legal.

Maybe where you come from and I understand why. Not in any way insulting. "The war" is in the past and lets by all means keep it there, but it is part of our past. I can see why certain legislation came into being. But you can't fight tiranny with tirannies tools.

Erm, wake up buddy. The Neo nazis want to bring "the war" back - as you call it. Besides the war in only 60 years ago. There is no reason why it could't happen again. Especially if we don't take those groups serious that want to smash our democracy.

Good example. The French overthrew a monarchy in 1848 because they were fed up with one person ruling the whole country. So they imposed a Republic. 1852 They were an Empire again. Uhmm... people forget quite fast. But someone with a goal doesn't.

So we should do away with certain peoples civil liberties because we dont like the way they use them?

[Donnervogel 0]

It is not a civil liberty to discriminate other people inside the borders of any western european democracy. It is also not a civil liberty to incite discrimination of other people inside the borders of any western european democracy.

You can express your opinion. Nobody takes that right away from you. Nevertheless the thing you express might be illegal. You won't get punished for expressing your opinion but for doing other illegal things.

It is a harsh fact that freedom of speech is not equal to "you can say whatever you want without considering the consequences"

EDIT: example

You may publicly express that you find person B an asshole. That's your right. That person however can sue you for it under certain circumstances and demand compensation because of "character assasination". That's the persons right too.

In other words. Freedom of speach doesn't suspend other existing laws.

[Supah 0]

It is not a civil liberty to discriminate other people inside the borders of any western european democracy. It is also not a civil liberty to incite discrimination of other people inside the borders of any western european democracy.

You can express your opinion. Nobody takes that right away from you. Nevertheless the thing you express might be illegal. You won't get punished for expressing your opinion but for doing other illegal things.

It is a harsh fact that freedom of speech is not equal to "you can say whatever you want without considering the consequences"

try explaining that here in the netherlands. Try reading up on the works of the so called hero of right wing politics theo van gogh. I for one did not mourn his death. Offcourse there are limits of good taste in these things but I remain of the opinion that people like neo nazi's will remain minorities because of the radicalisme of their opinion. Noone agrees with them. These people disqualify themselves for social acceptance through their thoughts ... to act like most people in the german language area are only gives them more attention. They will put their foot in their mouth eventually and to stiffle their opinion through undemocratic manors only serves to make you look bad.

[Donnervogel 0]

It is not a civil liberty to discriminate other people inside the borders of any western european democracy. It is also not a civil liberty to incite discrimination of other people inside the borders of any western european democracy.

You can express your opinion. Nobody takes that right away from you. Nevertheless the thing you express might be illegal. You won't get punished for expressing your opinion but for doing other illegal things.

It is a harsh fact that freedom of speech is not equal to "you can say whatever you want without considering the consequences"

try explaining that here in the netherlands. Try reading up on the works of the so called hero of right wing politics theo van gogh. I for one did not mourn his death. Offcourse there are limits of good taste in these things but I remain of the opinion that people like neo nazi's will remain minorities because of the radicalisme of their opinion. Noone agrees with them. These people disqualify themselves for social acceptance through their thoughts ... to act like most people in the german language area are only gives them more attention. They will put their foot in their mouth eventually and to stiffle their opinion through undemocratic manors only serves to make you look bad.

Those laws exist in the Netherlands too. However when nobody claims them some persons can easily get trough with illegal behaviour. Not every law requires the police/justice system to get involved without accusation.

Also your logic is quite flawed. In extreme situations people tend to adapt extreme views. That's one of the reasons why the nazis came to power. And that can easily happen again. Even with the nazis but not only with them. Not all the Germans that supported the Nazis wanted to exterminate Jews and impose a world domination. Infact I belive it was only a minority. Still a majority voted for the party. Simply because the situation was extreme and people wanted calm, security and jobs. And the nazis provided them. Easy as that. The ideology of a party doesn't have to be carried by a majority for a majority to vote for them. (On a sidenote: I vote socialist myself. But I find their ideology ridiculous. nevertheless I vote for them. Because I want some counter power to the right wing populists and the socialists are the only ones that seriously counter them in Switzerland. And as long as neither the right wing not the left wing gets a total majority I like it that way. Because they absorb each other. Due to the swiss system that doesn't lead to an absolutely blocked parliament though.)

Also the thing about giving them attention. Uhm. Do you also think one should not punish pocket thiefs because that gives them more attention? Uhmm... let's put it this way. I respect the law and I pay taxes and therefore I can also demand that the state makes sure that others respect the law too. Right? I don't want anybody to punish misguided fanatics because of what they are. But as soon as they do stuff that isn't allowed they must get punished for it. If I leave them alone doing their illegal stuff more and more people will feel betrayed and that would not leadto a more stable situation either.

[der bastler 0]

http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm

"Human dignity is inviolable." German Basic Law, Article 1

Freedom of expression is granted in Article 5.

Article 1 > Article 5.

Therefore you can't misuse "free speech" to violate "human dignity". Plus Article 18 states that if one does misuse basic civil rights like free speech "in order to combat the free democratic basic order shall forfeit these basic rights". Plain english: Talk freely about fighting the republic and you find yourself sedated by the Federal Constitutional Court.

But there's allways a catch. Personally I don't like part 2 of the Freedom-of-Expression article:

Quote[/b] ](2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.

Personal honour, ok. But limiting a civil right by general law? It's easier to change general law than to make an ammendment to the basic law...

--

Atm I face two big parties who combat these basic rights to fight terrorism. That's why I can't vote for CDU or SPD. The whole western political system shifts right because of 9-11, therefore I've to shift left --regarding the frame of reference-- to maintain center position. PDS? WASG? I don't know...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

PDS? WASG?

PDS? consisting of politicians that once kicked human rights with their shoes. Well considering your highly sophisticated approach of our constitutional laws (i may call it like that) I think this is a rather silly proposal.

WASG?

As far as I perceive it this party has basically only aims that would affect social and labour laws. I dont think they have any intentions to change "constitutional" laws. Thats just not their profile.

Maybe you need to do a bit MORE research to determine the right party to vote. You cannot just vote "more left" in order to supress laws put in place by the SPD and CDU.

I would rather switch to FDP and Grüne, which are rather established parties with at least some references than to PDS and WASG.

But anyhow we seem to have totally different political positions. I am an old CDU/FDP defender but a CSU denier!