European Politics Thread.

[denoir 0]

Sifo did a poll a while ago that showed that a vast majority of Swedes want increased work immigration.

You know, we don't have any work immigration. Merely refugees.

Rubbish:

http://www.immi.se/migration/statistik/utlandska1975-2001.htm

Let's sort it

Quote[/b] ]

Finland 97521

Irak 36221

Norge 33265

Danmark 26627

Jugoslavien 20741

Bosnien-Hercegovina 19728

Tyskland 17315

Polen 15511

Turkiet 13907

Storbritannien och Nordirland 13822

Iran 13499

USA 10026

Chile 9896

Somalia 9570

Kroatien 6859

Thailand 6251

Syrien 5984

Ryssland 5925

Frankrike 5018

So which countries are the refugees? Well, you have Iraq, you have Yugoslavia (although most are probably work immigrants from the 60's), you have Bosnia and down on the list on 12th place you have Iran, later Somalia and Syria.

None of the citizens of the other countries in that list are accepted as "refugees". There has to be a war or a very nasty political situation for people to be granted that status.

By percent you can see that less than 30% are refugees - if we assume that all the people from those countries are refugees, which of course is very wrong.

Quote[/b] ]

So why no work immigration (for our country)?

We have a massive work immigration.

Quote[/b] ]Wouldn't this work better though: You get a temporary residence permit, work, then after that period of time or earlier if wanted, you move back home or to another country which has gained a need for labour. I wouldn't oppose that. But economics isn't all.

It doesn't work that way. People want to settle down, get a family - in short a life. We're talking about people here, not worker robots. In addition, it's quite pointless as you cant a priori guess for how long people will be employed and needed.

Quote[/b] ]It was good. Until most solidarity within the nation was lost. The international solidarity thing is new.

The international solidarity is about 100 years old. As for solidarity within the nation, it does very much exist - that's why we have such a generous social system. The difference is that the concept "nation" has changed to "somebody who lives here", rather than the diffuse and meaningless.. well, I don't know actually. You didn't answer my question before on what a "Swede" is according to you - i.e how may generations back.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Second, you have to take tradition and culture in context.

Look at the 50's, then look at the 80's. Way to follow tradition and go in harmony with culture. There's also an difference between some German labour and masses of refugees from much more foreign cultures.

Well, that's exactly it - xenophobia, fear of the unknown. You are afraid of people that look differently and have different customs. It is a basic human reaction, but not very compatible with the modern society. It can be overcome by education and a competent integration policy (something we sadly lack today).

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]So without the rebate, we (the UK) would be paying the second most in the EU?

Is my screen broken? I see france and the UK paying the same here. And this correlates with their population.

No, your screen is not broken.

I found this fairly good description of the rebate on a blog:

Quote[/b] ]So, the thinking runs, a mate of yours has fallen on hard times, but still wants to be a member of your local club. Only trouble is they can’t quite afford the membership fees, and as they don’t smoke they don’t have the benefit of the club’s free cigars.

So you and the other members chip in and give them part of the membership fee back as an act of good faith and to reimburse them for their lack of cigars.

After a few years, your mate seems to be doing pretty well - spanking new suit, charging off all round the world, flashing the cash about with big charity donations. But you and the other club members are still giving him money, even though he’s now richer than pretty much all of you.

You’d feel pissed off, wouldn’t you?

I think it is pretty much spot on. Britain got the rebate because it was quite poor at the time, while today, it is reasonable that it pays as everybody else - according to the size of the population and economy.

It's kind of silly that Blair is off to save Africa, having no problems of making big donations there while at the same time refuses cutting the rebate, which would help the poorer EU states. I doubt Britain will drop it though. There's too much anti-EU sentiment in Britain that would be fueled by such a move.

The CAP should go as well. We're paying to keep France's antiquated and unproductive farming on life support.

Having said that, there is one bit of difficulty. The newer member states have to a larger degree an old-school agriculture. I'm not sure how overly thrilled they would be if we dismantled it the moment that they actually get an advantage of it. I suspect they would find it unfair that France has been feeding off it for decades and now when they join, it suddenly gets scrapped.

Furthermore, I'm not sure Chirac is in the position to remove it. He has just lost an important referendum and is atm very weak. I think that if he was to agree to whack the CAP he would be dragged off and guillotined by the same French farmers who said "Non" recently.

[iNeo 0]

We have a massive work immigration.

"No to work immigration" - "Prime minister says no to industry's request of work immigration" - "Sweden shouldn't bring work force from other countries until the unemployed immigrants already here have gotten jobs."

It's non-existent.

And since we don't have that, those who try to come here, try as refugees. And we accept even though only a few per cent are refugees according to the UN definition.

Quote[/b] ]As for solidarity within the nation, it does very much exist - that's why we have such a generous social system.

Which is being exploited due to lack of solidarity.

[denoir 0]

We have a massive work immigration.

"No to work immigration" - "Prime minister says no to industry's request of work immigration" - "Sweden shouldn't bring work force from other countries until the unemployed immigrants already here have gotten jobs."

It's non-existent.

And since we don't have that, those who try to come here, try as refugees. And we accept even though only a few per cent are refugees according to the UN definition.

That's exactly what it says - that Sweden (government) shouldn't bring work force from other countries. He's talking about an organized effort on the part of the Swedish states as in the 60's.

You really don't know much about these things, do you?

Let's ignore the statistics I showed you in my last post. By Sweden joining the EU, it joined the common labour market. Anybody from an EU state can work and live in any other EU state. That's one of the basics of the EU.

Just the other week my company hired a software developer from Poland who will be moving here to work with us after the summer.

For non-EU citizens, all what is required is that he/she applies for a permanent residency and that the company that wants to him/her provides a letter of intention.

Funny thing, you seem to care so much about immigration, but yet you don't even seem to know the basics..

[Necromancer- 0]

Denoir:

Quote[/b] ]Hehe, that's because I seldom get the chance to express my views on Swedish politics. I positively hate, the Social Democrats that are in power and what they are doing to Sweden. What's worse, there is not one single party that I would today vote for. Our liberals, which I used to vote for, have become a populist party that no way in hell is going to get my vote. I honestly don't know who I'll stomach to vote for in the elections next year. It will probably be Moderaterna, a right-of-center conservative party (who I don't particularly like at all, but their economic ideas are better than the ones of other parties) or I will not vote at all (blank vote).

Hehe.. join the club!  

Quote[/b] ]As for immigration, as I understand, the Dutch are mostly worried about Muslim, non-European immigration. I understand and sympathize with the social issues of integration that you have, but I have a difficult time supporting it. I cannot see how I with my liberal principles could justify preventing the free movement of people based on faith, race or nationality. Perhaps it is naive to think that way, but so be it. In practical terms, I think integration and multiculturalism could be handled a lot better.

Well.. I think I have to get more detailed..

Integration and multiculturalism should indeed have been handled a lot better...

During the 60's a lot of immigrants from Morocco and Turkey came to The Netherlands to do some "simple work" of which the average dutchmen doesn't want to do.

Our government was such a short-sighted bitch that they assumed that the immigrants return to their country of origin.

The government didn't plan a plan B, in case the immigrants decide to stay in The Netherlands.

The government didn't plan out integration procedures for the immigrants who would like to stay here, nor did the majority of the immigrants care about learning anything about the Dutch culture.

As a result many structural society problems arised from this ethnic minority. In time they sealed themselves off from Dutch society, only few of their children succeeded in our society.

[*Pete* 0]

Hello Forum, it's been a long time i last posted anything here, but i've been here reading the forum's almost every day.

many topics has catched my interest, but none as much as this one, with Ineo on one side and the rest on the other side...

as i see it, it looks as Ineo doesnt really understand his own opinions clearly enough to see where he stands politically, some possible lack of logic, or maybe he has not thought things over enough yet...maybe he is young?

anyway, here comes..

we (our national people) all have been immigrants, some of us even refugees, through the history

sweden for example, HUGE amounts of swedes went to America merely little more than a hundred years ago.

would Ineo object if the US would decide that "one nation, one people" is an universal human right and send back the swede's (and others) and give back the nation to the native indians??

would he object if this would happen now, or a hundred years ago, after the 6 month working permits would have run out for the swedish immigrants??

how does Ineo feel about the swedes that go to norway to work for better salaries, and often, stay there to form a family and a life for self?

Does Ineo know, that the largest group of immigrants in norway are the.......well, swedish

(even if the culture is very similiar to the swedish one...the swedes so often REFUSE to learn to speak norwegian, something that cant be said about the average immigrant in sweden)

how about the large about of northerners, swedes, norwegians, britons......who move to SPAIN when they are retired, live comfortably in the warm country, and more often than not, refuse to learn the new language...

they also seldom work in spain, or pay any sort of taxes, but they do use all of the spanish wellfare systems, as schools for their children and hospitals for the weaker old people who relax after spending a lifetime working and paying taxes in for example, sweden.

the finnish people, 500,000 of them, in sweden, came there both as refugees (1939-1944) and as workers in the 60's and 70's.

they were just as much hated then as todays darker immigrants are today, but today...the finns are found everywhere in the society of sweden, funnily even, among the swedish nationalists, and nazis, and skinheads...to mention groups that are related to the discussion.

however, i acknowledge the fact that our white skin let us blend in smoothly, but the cultural difference between finns and swedes were the same large as between the swedes and russians, for example...

alcohol and sauna...both of these onn would relate with finns and russians, only one of those with swedes....but, as finns are accepted, russians are not.

why not Ineo?

i wont accuse you to be a nazi, maybe a confused racist, but if you would take yourself time and find a logic that fits your outspoken opinions, and doesnt break with these facts or differentiate between the white or darker colors of the skin...feel welcome to share it to us.

you will be best of, by understanding self, who you are.

*Pete*

[Balschoiw 0]

just for the record iNeo:

Neo-nazis plan National Day march

Quote[/b] ]Neo-nazis and other extreme-right groups are planning demonstrations in Stockholm on June 6th, threatening to mar revamped celebrations of Sweden's national holiday that day, media reported on Sunday.

A number of nationalist and extreme-right groups are planning to gather in downtown Stockholm before "marching through central parts of Stockholm to a calm and isolated place where there will be speeches", Dagens Nyheter reported.

"On June 6, Stockholm's streets will again be dominated by Swedes and not by sleazy immigrants waiting for an easy victim. On June 6, we'll take back our country," one of the groups, National Opposition, states on its website.

Such a demonstration could cast a shadow over the festivities planned for the day, which for the first time ever this year will be a bank holiday.

Instituted as "Swedish Flag Day" in 1916 and adopted as the national day in 1983, June 6 commemorates many key moments in Swedish history.

The day marks a celebration of Gustav Vasa's 1523 accession to the throne, which ended Danish rule, and the 1809 adoption of a new constitution, kicking off Sweden's democratic tradition.

But while streets and buildings have traditionally been bedecked in the blue and yellow of the Swedish flag on June 6, the day only became a bank holiday following a parliament vote last December.

In my eyes you are a guy who publically says he is affiliated to Nazi ideas, joins the demos and defends that position. It makes you more a nazi than a nationalist. The boundaries seem to be fluent. Your incoherent logic indeed indicates that you are sharing their thoughts and your comments on them only strenghten that picture.

Either you are a nationalist, as you say, or a Nazi, which is very much indicated by yourself by sharing their ideas and motivations, I don´t care.

For me you are just a confused 19 year old guy with a tendency

for facists and an affiliation to Nazis.

That´s what you actually posted yourself.

Call me a moron, I don´t care as I know where it comes from.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

-sorry, had to delete it.-

[iNeo 0]

Right Balschoiw that's the article I linked to, the one you quoted from and as you see just one of the groups said that.

"A number of nationalists and extreme-right groups are planning to gather" - well there you go.

And btw I'm for democracy.

[Placebo 29]

As Europe is more than just one person let's get back to discussing European politics rather than one individual's politics, if you must discuss their politics take it away from the forums.

[denoir 0]

Franco-British row: Another 100-year war [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

You can always depend on the British and French to turn an argument into a row.

Having witnessed them over many years, I have tried to identify the various rules governing these encounters.

[*]There is no closed season. Each side can attack the other whenever it wants. The subject doesn't really matter. This is the 100-years war by other means. The key thing is to maintain the offensive on whatever front.

[*]Each party knows that the other can take it. It is a way of continuing history - with nobody killed. France and the UK know underneath that not since Waterloo have they come to blows nor will they again.

The Entente may not be that Cordiale but it is now 101 years old. Both love this at heart. They are two sides of the same coin - both nationalistic, proud and prickly. And a bit absurd to others.

[*]This is an exclusive Franco-British club. It is evenly matched. Nobody else can join. It is impossible, for example, to bring the Germans in. They might take it too seriously and history is just a bit too sensitive. And nobody else counts. You cannot have such fun with Luxembourg.

[*]Treat the other side's arguments with contempt. You present your own, of course, as gospel. Thus, the French see nothing but good in the common agriculture policy and the British see nothing but bad. The same is true with the rebate. You must never concede that the other fellow might have a point. Not in public anyway.

[*]Blame the other side for your own failings. In the recent referendum the French blamed the Brits for something called "Anglo-Saxon" attitudes and policies which were apparently threatening to ruin France. The counter charge is that European (meaning French-inspired) bureaucracy is strangling the plucky Brits.

[*]You can turn this personal if all else fails. Margaret Thatcher used to scowl and rail about "they" during the heights of the original rebate rows. "They" were any Frenchmen. She never forgave the French for their ambivalent attitude, as she saw it and she saw it only one way, towards the Falklands War.

I am sure there must be other rules. It is certainly a very intense game.

Most of these rules apply to the current spat.

Tony and Jacques

Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac are not so chummy anymore. It all started off well enough. Uncle Jacques kept on saying how fond he was of the Blair's baby - little Leo.

Then, as now, they fell out over the common agricultural policy. In 2002, Uncle Jacques turned on his friend and said: "You have been very badly brought up." For a boy educated at the fine Fettes College in Edinburgh, that must have stung. Next it was Iraq. Serious differences turned nasty. The French were incensed that the British accused Mr Chirac of refusing a second Security Council resolution whatever the circumstances. A false charge, said Paris. But it was too late. London had someone to blame.

Now, the stunning French rejection of the EU constitution, which has huge international implications, has been obscured by a coincidental and much narrower argument over the EU budget and in particular the British budget rebate.

This time, it is the Brits who accuse the French of diversionary tactics. Things have got so bad that it seems that Mr Blair is to give his own news conference after his meeting with Uncle Jacques in Paris on Tuesday. Normally the form on these occasions is to have a joint one, however fraught.

Lessons from history

But has it not always been so? One event - two views.

Remember General de Gaulle and his tones of disapproval as he said "Non" to British membership of the then Common Market? Britain was different, he murmured. For the British, these were words of rejection when they expected gratitude for the refuge given to him in France's darkest hour. For the French (and others) they were words of warning which might just have come true.

And before that, there was that little episode at Dunkirk. For the British, it was heroic (we forget the failure bit). For the French, it looked like the British were running for cover. And so on, back through history.

1066 and all that

Until we get to the common ancestor, William the Conqueror.

And there one pauses, because then it becomes clear that all these arguments are a bit silly, really. All you have to do is to look at the inscription on the British memorial near Caen, put up after World War II. The original is in Latin but it translates as: "We the sons of William have returned to free his native land."

That lends all this stuff about the EU a bit of perspective.

Heh, I think it is pretty much spot on. I am always bewildered on how a general EU debate can so quickly be reduced to a British-French fight. The current "rebate" debate is so typical. For some reason the British keep comparing themselves to France ("Oh but we pay more than France, and with the rebate gone, we'd pay even more than them"), but carefully avoid comparing themselves with the Germans (who have a similar GDP while paying far more to the EU and getting far less back) or the Dutch and the Swedish (Who pay a far bigger percentage of their GDP and per capita). But no, let's compare it all to the French. And of course, it's all just about France wanting to remove the rebate - ignoring the fact that France is just one of the 24 member states that have demanded the rebate to go.

Of course, the French ain't innocent in all this. They bring up the rebate as the cause of all evil in the world, never missing a chance to mention it.

The whole French-British fight could also be a reason for the very strong anti-EU polemics you can find in most British tabloids (i.e "Britons shall never be slaves!" kind of crap). For some reason the British seem to a large degree think that EU=France, which certainly isn't true today. It was 30 years ago, but not now. And the French conversely think that the EU should be French and if it isn't that it's all Britain's fault. In the recent referendum, the French lashed out against globalization - which they dubbed "Anglo-Saxon values".

And the deluded perception of self-importance of both nations is not exactly helping. Both are former colonial and military powers, who have a difficult time accepting their role in the world.

From that perspective, it's really bad the constitution didn't pass. The current rules allow for individual member states to obstruct EU work. With less vetoes and a more democratic system, both Britain and France could be put into place by the rest of the Union, who are all sick and tired of their constant bitching and their constant fights.

[Donnervogel 0]

Quote of Bordoy from the Iraq thread:

Quote[/b] ]That's all well except that we haven't said no the EU constitution..............yet. France killed it, while Holland put the nail in coffin. Not that Chirac wants to admit it, which is why he has just changed the subject to the EU Rebate nad blaming everything on us.

oh god I keep hearing that shit. It's like everybody reads the brtish equivalent of the Pravda and believes it.

Just think further, why did they say no? Partially because of internal politics. But that wasn't the entire no camp. Also the left was against it because it wasn't social enough. And why wasn't it social enough? Because there most social stuff can't go through as the brits would oppose it. And be honest to yourself. If you were first to vote on it you had said no too. Only because you don't have a referendum now doesn't mean you're all of the sudden for it, huh?

The point is that the UK has totally different goals than most of the rest of the EU. And the EU has to make compromises that pleases the brits but pisses off the rest. I agree now. The UK should leave the EU. There's too much trouble and problems because of them and they don't even want to be a member. So I see no more reason why they should be in the EU. They shall try their luck alone or join the USA or whatever. Just don't hold up the others. If they might want to join again later they're welcome. But not for every price. They can join but under the same condition as the rest. No more special rebates and ego trips. The EU will be able to move forward much better with more similar minded members.

[Goeth 0]

Yes it would be good idea to kick the UK out of the boat, to me it looks like they don´t like the EU very much so why should we drag them along.

[denoir 0]

Indeed.

What the British don't seem to understand about Europe is that most of the people in the other member states actually want it to work. Strange, eh?

Britain on the other hand behaves like an unwilling kid being dragged along on a family excursion.. absolutely determined to make it as unpleasant as possible for everyone involved.

The thing is, Britain isn't a little kid, it does have a choice. It doesn't have to go on the excursion. So why sit in the back seat whining and ruining it for everybody else?

Europe is clearly going into a direction where the British do not want to go. There is no point forcing an unwilling population to come along, and there is no point in Britain ruining the cooperation for everyone else. It is quite apparent that the British are not ready to abandon the nation state model. So it is better that we part as friend than to let the resentment build up. Let the British come back if and when they are willing and have at least roughly the same vision as the rest of Europe.

Britain is not the only problem the EU has, but it is a major unnecessary complication.

[Balschoiw 0]

Sure...they want to keep the benefits....

but take their solos whenever they can no matter if it´s in EU interest or the EU policy is totally contrary to their doings.

Time to set up a vote in the UK if they want to leave the EU.

They will vote yes and then let them have it.

Good riddance. They´re obviously too much "islandish" for the EU.

Seen an interview with Blair on german television yesterday. He cried about the rebate but didn´t mention all the pro´s they got from the EU. I say ok, let them have it. They don´t want to be part and are the guys at the brakes in any matters, want to feel happy in the poop of the USA, let them have it.

I can remember a time of depression in the UK. If they want to have it again, their wish shall be granted.

[llauma 0]

Is it anyway possible for EU to sell UK to Bahrain or something? They got plenty of rain which would propably be appreciated.

Loosing UK would be a failure for what EU is trying to achive but as long as UK keeps their attitude EU will fail to become what it's trying to achive. Perhaps UK needs some time on their own to fully realize what EU is and the good it does for their country.

[Bordoy 0]

I am not against the EU, and I am not against the original goal of the common market. What I am against, is further integration with each other as this would mean one small step one the way to the USE. If it was up to me, we would stay in the EU. But peoples fears are that, in whatever amount of years, we will become european and not be known officially as British. IOther things come into it as currency and other isuues.

What was the ORIGINAL goal of the EU? Was it to stop another WW2?

Quote[/b] ]They will vote yes and then let them have it.

The message i got is that it is ilegal to leave.

[denoir 0]

I am not against the EU, and I am not against the original goal of the common market. What I am against, is further integration with each other as this would mean one small step one the way to the USE. If it was up to me, we would stay in the EU.

The British want a free-trade agreement, not a political union. Fine, I'm sure something can be arranged. It is however very clear that you are still too attached to the nation-state model to be a positively contributing member of the Union.

I don't know, if you've noticed the trend: shared laws, common currency, constitution... It goes far beyond a free-trade agreement. That's where Europe is going and if you are not a willing participant in such a development, then you should leave.

As for a "United States of Europe", it implies that the EU wants to take a similar shape to the one of the US. This is not at all the case - both the form and purpose of a further integration is quite different from the US. We're not for instance looking to create a new military superpower. You won't see the EU running off on adventures a la Iraq anytime soon.

There is however a strong need for a common foreign policy, but again, this differs sharply from the US. Europe is dedicated to foreign policy that respects international law and supports international institutions, such as the UN - not as in the case of the US only to promote national interests.

The US, despite its federation structure is for all practical purposes a nation state. That isn't going to happen in Europe - on the contrary, one of the strong points of it is that it isn't a nation state and has no ambitions becoming one. It's about setting aside short-sighted national interests and petty differences to build something together. Hopefully the world will converge to this stage one day, but for now, we can at least do it in our little corner.

Quote[/b] ]But peoples fears are that, in whatever amount of years, we will become european and not be known officially as British.

Well that's exactly what is telling that you are not ready. You can be a Londoner, English, British, European, Earthling all at the same time. Your culture can be anything you want it to be. You are worried about the national integrity of the nation state Britain, and you should be. In the same way that the UK unites the English, Welsh, Scottish and partially the Irish, the EU unites the European states.

That's where we're going, and you don't wish to be a part of it, then by all means, leave. No hard feelings. Just don't go along as an unwilling participant that spoils the fun for everybody else.

I honestly don't think Britain is ready for the EU today. I have no doubts that it will one day, but until then it is better for all involved that you are not forced to follow a path that you're not ready for.

Quote[/b] ]What was the ORIGINAL goal of the EU? Was it to stop another WW2?

There have been several different goals. The first one with the Coal & Steel union was in the short term to tie together French and German industries to prevent future wars. The long term goal was a federal Europe. The plans for the latter collapsed at the time when the French decided against having a common European military - they wanted to keep their own. Just like Britain today, they weren't ready to take the full step back then (not surprising as it was relatively short after WW2).

After that came the EEC, which was largely a French scheme to get German industry to finance French farming. Germany, still guilt driven by WW2 gladly obliged. As it turned out, it wasn't such a bad deal for Germany as well, and more countries joined in. The British wanted to join on several occasions, but they were vetoed by de Gaulle  (in 1963 and 1967). His motivation was that Britain had different goals and would ultimately just sabotage the community. Turns out that he wasn't too wrong on that one.

Britain did for a while try to create an EEC of its own, which would be a trans-Atlantic one and include the US. This however failed for a variety of reasons. Britain being in deep economic shit at the time, finally joined the EEC in 1973.

The big change came in 1992 with the Maastricht treaty, which set up the foundations of today's European Union. That together with the Nice treaty is what we have today.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]They will vote yes and then let them have it.

The message i got is that it is ilegal to leave

It's not exactly illegal, but there are no legal formal procedures for it. The appropriate laws could however be passed very quickly. If Britain decides to leave, as things are today, you would find little resistance.

I don't think the EU can kick out a member either. The best solution is of course is Britain itself makes up its mind.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Again, they don´t have any concept on policies in the BRD today. But they act like they had. They talk of spendings but what money will they use to make that real ? Will they print some ?

Right now it´s not easy to find a good political direction that will transport germany into the right direction. But contributing work or what Merkel said "Ich will Deutschland dienen" has not been seen form the CDU/CSU over the last years. They were just a blocking opposition without alternative concepts. Unfit for command as I said.

Well as I said, You dont need to read much in order to identify their programm for the upcoming election. You said there are no indicators of how they intent to rejuvinate the economy and boost employment and how those steps can be financed?

Just read the silly ole Bild Zeitung

Quote[/b] ]

Die 7 bitteren Pillen der Union

RENTE: Das Einstiegsalter soll ab 2011 von 65 auf 67 Jahre angehoben werden.

Bedeutet: Wer früher in Rente will, muß entsprechend höhere Abschläge in Kauf nehmen.

KÜNDIGUNGSSCHUTZ: In Betrieben mit bis zu 20 Mitarbeitern soll künftig für Neueinstellungen generell nur noch der gesetzliche Kündigungsschutz gelten.

Für alle anderen Betriebe gilt: Der Kündigungsschutz greift für neue Mitarbeiter erst nach zwei Jahren (bisher sechs Monate). Arbeitnehmer und Arbeitgeber können künftig statt Kündigungsschutz aber auch eine Abfindung vereinbaren.

TARIFRECHT: Chef und Belegschaft sollen künftig z. B. längere Arbeitszeiten, weniger Urlaub, Lohnkürzungen vereinbaren können, wenn durch betriebliche Bündnisse Jobs gesichert werden.

Voraussetzung: Zwei Drittel der Mitarbeiter müssen zustimmen.

ZUSCHLÄGE: Die Steuerfreiheit für Feiertags- und Nachtzuschläge soll innerhalb von sechs Jahren schrittweise abgeschafft werden. Dafür soll aber der Eingangssteuersatz von 15 auf 12 %, der Spitzensteuersatz von 42 auf 39 % sinken. Außerdem soll der Familienfreibetrag so erhöht werden, daß eine Familie mit zwei Kindern bis zu einem Jahreseinkommen von 32 000 Euro überhaupt keine Steuern zahlt.

Noch offen ist, ob zur Gegenfinanzierung auch die Eigenheimzulage (2500 Euro/Jahr) komplett abgeschafft wird.

PENDLER: Die Entfernungspauschale soll von jetzt 30 auf künftig 25 Cent je Kilometer gekürzt werden.

Außerdem soll sie nur noch bis maximal 50 Kilometer (einfache Fahrt zur Arbeitsstätte) gezahlt werden (bisher keine Entfernungsbegrenzung).

ARBEITSLOSE: Die Zuschüsse an die Bundesagentur für Arbeit sollen radikal gekürzt werden.

Bedeutet: deutlich weniger Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahmen (ABM), Abschaffung der Personal-Service-Agenturen, weniger Geld für Ich-AGs. Für Langzeitarbeitslose sollen Billiglöhne (10 % unter Tarif) eingeführt werden.

MEHRWERTSTEUER: In der Union gilt als ausgemacht, daß sie nach der Wahl um mindestens zwei Punkte von jetzt 16 auf 18 % steigt – im Gegenzug soll der Beitrag zur Arbeitslosenversicherung von jetzt 6,5 auf 5 % gesenkt werden.

What else do you want. For me this is a pretty transparent programm months ahead of the election.

sorry for not translating this into english, some terms are just pretty hard to transform into english

[harley 3 1185 0]

Tell me, what would you do if the French people decided to leave the European Union in light of the Constitutional fiasco?  Or Holland?  Or any of the other countries which were denied a referendum by their governments.  Somehow I really doubt that Germany is keen on letting Turkey join the EU, what with all the trouble it has had in the past with immigration from the east.  The Netherlands are certainly becoming more and more reactionary and progressively more anti-Euro, anti EU.  Due to the splintering of French national opinion (the government say one thing, the people say another), it's reasonable to assume that if it weren't for the benefits of the CAP, there would be wider calls for France to disengage from the higher functions of the EU.

I will give my view on the European Union-as some people may have gotten a different idea from the Iraq thread.

The idea of a European Free Market is a fine one, and on it's own could have done much to stimulate the economies of Europe in the past decade.  However, offset by the bad structuring of the Euro, the greed associated with the CAP, Britain's rebate and the fact that we tend to buy most of our garbage from China, it has been less of a success than hoped for.

If the EU was nothing more than a Free Market/Free Border system, with certain funding programs to assist with the developing new members in the East; I would be happy; however, too many of the Western powerhouses are taking money they don't need.  I agree, Britain should surrender her rebate in the interest of the new member states, but France really needs to give up some of her comfy subsidies - I'm sure her beloved Central government can fund her agricultural industry - at least it could have, if it hadn't spent the entire 1980s constructing les Grands Projets and shelling out millions of francs to Disneyland and other less deserving bodies.

I have said what kind of EU I would like, and it would be interest of the new member states and the upcoming ones to keep it as simple as possible.  Do we really need a constitution?  Is it so necessary that if two countries say "Non" and "Ne" that the entire European Union is put at risk?  It is not the idea of the European Union which is flawed; it is the politicians.

And to be brutally honest, if 24 other member states including the most powerful countries in Europe feel threatened by Britain, then that's just pathetic. Britain does NOT want a Constitution, but there are a great many of us who want a European Union. Do not confuse Constitution with the EU; it's not our fault if your leaders did.

[Donnervogel 0]

Tell me, what would you do if the French people decided to leave the European Union in light of the Constitutional fiasco? Or Holland? Or any of the other countries which were denied a referendum by their governments. Somehow I really doubt that Germany is keen on letting Turkey join the EU, what with all the trouble it has had in the past with immigration from the east. The Netherlands are certainly becoming more and more reactionary and progressively more anti-Euro, anti EU. Due to the splintering of French national opinion (the government say one thing, the people say another), it's reasonable to assume that if it weren't for the benefits of the CAP, there would be wider calls for France to disengage from the higher functions of the EU.

I will give my view on the European Union-as some people may have gotten a different idea from the Iraq thread.

The idea of a European Free Market is a fine one, and on it's own could have done much to stimulate the economies of Europe in the past decade. However, offset by the bad structuring of the Euro, the greed associated with the CAP, Britain's rebate and the fact that we tend to buy most of our garbage from China, it has been less of a success than hoped for.

If the EU was nothing more than a Free Market/Free Border system, with certain funding programs to assist with the developing new members in the East; I would be happy; however, too many of the Western powerhouses are taking money they don't need. I agree, Britain should surrender her rebate in the interest of the new member states, but France really needs to give up some of her comfy subsidies - I'm sure her beloved Central government can fund her agricultural industry - at least it could have, if it hadn't spent the entire 1980s constructing les Grands Projets and shelling out millions of francs to Disneyland and other less deserving bodies.

I have said what kind of EU I would like, and it would be interest of the new member states and the upcoming ones to keep it as simple as possible. Do we really need a constitution? Is it so necessary that if two countries say "Non" and "Ne" that the entire European Union is put at risk? It is not the idea of the European Union which is flawed; it is the politicians.

And to be brutally honest, if 24 other member states including the most powerful countries in Europe feel threatened by Britain, then that's just pathetic. Britain does NOT want a Constitution, but there are a great many of us who want a European Union. Do not confuse Constitution with the EU; it's not our fault if your leaders did.

Uhmm afaik most French people are totally pro EU. They wouldn't want to leave it. They said no to the constitutions, that's true. They didn't say no to the EU though. And for the french part a large block of the no camp was against it because for them it didn't go far enough in certain areas. And another large block simply had no idea what they were voting on. And only a relatively small block voted against the constitution because it went too far.

I don't really know much about the Netherlands. From what I heard they blame the EU for all sorts of things that aren't really the problem of the EU, but rather their own government. But that's an old story in many member states anyway. Just blame the EU so you don't get the blame. But I'm not so well informed about the Netherlands.

The French opinion is very contrary to the british opinion where most people seem to be against the EU itself and the constitution is going too far for them as they already have trouble accepting the current organisation.

So those are different reasons. But there is a decisive thing about it. The British don't want the same EU as most of the continent. They're going in a different direction. I don't want to kick them out. I personally think it would be a big loss for the EU and I think the EU needs britain somehow. But when the british people don't want to be in the EU, why should they be there? I want an EU with a population that knows why it's good for them. If they think it only hurts them and thus sabotage attempts to make the whole thing more democratic (right now it's totally unbearable for my democratic sense) and gives it more effectiveness then it would really be better to go on without such nations.

This EU constitution was a fiasco yes. But the EU itself ins't IMHO. I think this constitution was made unacceptable for many because of too many compromises between too different visions.

Also it turns out that the governments made a terrible job of informing the public about what the constitution is. Firstly it's not really a constitution in the traditional sense. It does not lay the foundation of a centralised state. It also doens't replace any existing constitutions. I don't know about the english term but the german term is "Verfassungsvertrag" which means as much as "constitutional threaty" and it pretty much says what it is. It's a threaty that should contain the organisation of the EU and fix some important basic laws. Rather than having lots of different threaties doing pretty much the same but obsolte in many points as the EU expanded. Also it would have given us some new instruments towards more democratic organisation which is really needed as I think.

[denoir 0]

Tell me, what would you do if the French people decided to leave the European Union in light of the Constitutional fiasco?  Or Holland?  Or any of the other countries which were denied a referendum by their governments.  Somehow I really doubt that Germany is keen on letting Turkey join the EU, what with all the trouble it has had in the past with immigration from the east.  The Netherlands are certainly becoming more and more reactionary and progressively more anti-Euro, anti EU.  Due to the splintering of French national opinion (the government say one thing, the people say another), it's reasonable to assume that if it weren't for the benefits of the CAP, there would be wider calls for France to disengage from the higher functions of the EU.

The French are pro integration and so are the Dutch. It's quite amusing how people see these things in black/white.

What the French and the Dutch declared was that they wouldn't accept further integration at any cost. The constitution was a sad piece of incoherent chaotic legislation - and that was not to a small degree Britain's contribution. It could not be any more coherent as Blair demanded hundreds of exceptions and special cases.

We've obviously reached a point where an ideological base for the Union has to be defined. To achieve that we need some form of consensus on what the future of EU should be. Should it just be an economic tool, or do we want more? While Britain has the attitude it has today, a consensus is impossible. You can't build a solid foundation on an nearly infinite sequence of compromises and special cases.

Both the Dutch and the French had some serious issues with their politicians in general, which they vented. The Dutch also were pissed off at getting screwed with the Euro transformation, with Germany, Italy and France not sticking to the stability pact and for the Dutch paying so much per capita. Those are justified objections (although probably presented at the wrong place), which all can be solved with not too much trouble.

The CAP the rebate etc are not the problem here. The problem is the vision of the future of Europe. And sure, the other member states have their differences, but none are on such a fundamental level as the ones with the British.

Quote[/b] ]If the EU was nothing more than a Free Market/Free Border system, with certain funding programs to assist with the developing new members in the East; I would be happy;

And that exactly is the British vision, which is not compatible with where the rest want to go. We want a common foreign policy, a common defence, more common laws etc

If you wanted none of that, why the hell did you sign the Maastricht treaty and later on the Nice treaty? You could have easily stayed out and kept it all on a economic level only. So why sign up for the political cooperation, when you clearly don't want that.

Quote[/b] ]I agree, Britain should surrender her rebate in the interest of the new member states, but France really needs to give up some of her comfy subsidies

Oh absolutely, but that's not the problem. How much money is piped around is a matter of budget negotiations. For these to be fair however, a solid political system is needed, which we don't have yet on Union level. Those are however just practical issues that can be solved.

The real problem is the fundamental ideology.

Quote[/b] ]I have said what kind of EU I would like, and it would be interest of the new member states and the upcoming ones to keep it as simple as possible. Do we really need a constitution? Is it so necessary that if two countries say "Non" and "Ne" that the entire European Union is put at risk?

It is necessary for further integration, to make the system more democratic and to eliminate a ton of bureaucracy. The EU is however hardly at risk, despite the hysterical tone of British media. We have however arrived to a point where the people have objected against accepting any piece of crap legislation just as long as it is in the name of European integration.

Quote[/b] ]And to be brutally honest, if 24 other member states including the most powerful countries in Europe feel threatened by Britain, then that's just pathetic.

You've spent most of your time obstructing integration, and as the current treaties allow any country to use a veto more or less anywhere, yes you are a threat - an obstruction. If Sweden behaved the same way, it would also be a threat.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Unfortunately, Denoir, I do not make international policy. I did not sign the Maastricht Treaty, or the Treaty of Nice.

I'm intrigued however; please list the reasons WHY we need a common European Foreign policy, WHY we need a common Defense Policy. We are already at a point where the EU has legal superiority over many of our own laws-maybe there are other legal points which could be ironed out but I'm sure that could be dealt with in time by the elected representatives we send to Brussels.

Of course "how much money is piped around" is important; most of the economies of Europe are totally stagnant, and sorting that out comes from within-not by spending more money on closer union with other countries.

The first thing which needs to be done, for the benefit of all the Eurpean union member states, is to clean house at Brussels - I for one would have no objection if the bodies in Brussels were more electable. Maybe that was one of the points of the European Constitution-I wouldn't know, and neither would many other people, because the idiots who worked it out couldn't make it concise and to the point. Later today, I'm going to find a copy of the proposal, peruse it, and see if there is any actual merit in there. I agree, the British press has been hysterical when it really needn't be, and hasn't bothered outlining what the Constitution was all about, but then again the rest of Europe hasn't exactly been quiet either.

It would seem that everyone has been bitching about different things in the past few weeks as regards Europe, and if all we can do is agree to disagree, then maybe there's not much point for closer Union after all.

It is all a matter of information.

[Donnervogel 0]

I'm intrigued however; please list the reasons WHY we need a common European Foreign policy, WHY we need a common Defense Policy.

Because it would give the EU a betetr position in global competition. Not only on economical level (where it seems to work quite well now) but also in political matters. I don't know about you. But I don't feel like becomming a puppet of world powers again. I want that europe has it's say too. At least when it concerns european interests. Right know europe is poltically just pathethic. We keep quarraling with each other all the time and it's too easy for nations like the US to "shut us down". With a common foreign policy we wouldn't stop quarraling maybe. But we would have a common representation. Off course it would make it harder for single nations to go on their adventures in the desert but IMHO that's a good thing. I'm not interested in europe becomming world police or colonial power again. We've seen to what it leads and it never was anything that I consider good. Nevertheless we need to take care of our interests and we surley have more weight when 25 nations speak in a common way than splitting in 25 parties that keep disabling each other.

Also it would increase the efficiency of the process a lot. Right now, every time some major agreement is about to be made they need to call in a EU summit, then the head of states fly in quickly (mostly they come too late) have some dinner and fly home the next day and let their diplomats argue for a week to reach the consesus that there is none. That's no way to govern anything...

And common defense... why not? more security, more cost efficient and less likely to get involved in wars in which it has nothing to do.

Quote[/b] ]We are already at a point where the EU has legal superiority over many of our own laws-maybe there are other legal points which could be ironed out but I'm sure that could be dealt with in time by the elected representatives we send to Brussels.

Well without reforms there's not much the elected representatives can do in Strasbourg (Parliament). And the first step of this reforms was the constitution. Although there need to follow a lot more before we get a proper european parliament.

Also the legal superiority... well I'm kinda suprised the brits bitch most about that as the brits are those that have negotiated out most speacial regulations that exclude them from things other have to do. So the brits kinda have the least of it. And also remember that the EU doesn't have formal superiority. Those laws get agreed on in treaties that your government signs and then includes in the national law. Formally every nation has the possibillity to reject those laws. Although that would lead to some major conflicts between the EU member states.

Also as it is now. Most laws that are regulated on EU level concern ecomomy. You need that for your oh so beloved free market. I don't know about every country but here the regulations for the market and the general economy represent the largest fraction of the law. So that's not very surprising to me as the economy is where the EU has made most progress.

Quote[/b] ]It would seem that everyone has been bitching about different things in the past few weeks as regards Europe, and if all we can do is agree to disagree, then maybe there's not much point for closer Union after all.

Well the two sides that never can agree are genrally France and Britain. The other differences are sorted out relatively easy. France is as guilty for this as Britain but unfortunately for Britain, France is closer to the opinions of the rest of the continent while Britain often stands alone.

With all this differences it is of course impossible to get any agreement "on the point" as you put it because when France and Britain start bitching about their extra regulation, then - of course - the germans will whine about their interests too and Poland and SPain and so on. So it ends up being a document that is not understandable for the normal citizen. But that's the fault of all those nations that are unable to make compromises in their area of interest. That's also a reason why we need common EU policy. As long as each nation can so powerfully defend it's own interests against the rest of the members and come trough with it it is impossible to reach any good agreement. If we had a proper legislation on EU level with the parilament playing a serious role in it we could finally make some progress with majority decissions that don't get vetoed all the time because somebody is being stubborn. Of course there should't be majority decissions for everthing. But some things just need to have a bigger chance to get accepted in order to reform the EU institutions and give them some efficency, which they desperatly need.

[denoir 0]

I'm intrigued however; please list the reasons WHY we need a common European Foreign policy, WHY we need a common Defense Policy.

If any of the European countries want to have a voice in international politics, then we need a common foreign policy. It's the same deal as with the economics. The prelude to the Iraq war is a good demonstration of how impotent Europe becomes when a part of it is running in the opposite direction. Or the sad failure in Yugoslavia, where things were not getting any better until the US got involved.

In foreign policy, just like with economics, all that matters is size.

As for a common defence - to save money. We spend half of what the US does on our militaries, but we only have a tenth of the strength. Maintaining 25 militaries instead of one is bloody expensive, and the results are not good.

Quote[/b] ]We are already at a point where the EU has legal superiority over many of our own laws-maybe there are other legal points which could be ironed out but I'm sure that could be dealt with in time by the elected representatives we send to Brussels.

50% to be a bit more specific. About half of the laws in Europe are Union laws and the rest are national ones.

Quote[/b] ]Of course "how much money is piped around" is important; most of the economies of Europe are totally stagnant, and sorting that out comes from within-not by spending more money on closer union with other countries.

That the economies in Europe are stagnant is a gross exaggeration popular in British and US media. The differences between what they claim are "good" and "bad" economies are minimal.

US Growth: ~3.5-4%

UK Growth: ~3-3.5%

EU Average: ~2.5%

Eurozone: ~2.1%

(Look a few pages back for full references, we discussed this a while ago in the thread)

Notable is also that it's only the last two years that the Eurozone economies have grown more slowly.

I'm really sceptical to such short term predictions and theories. Remember it is from the same people (economists) who brought us the lovely IT-bubble.

Quote[/b] ]The first thing which needs to be done, for the benefit of all the European union member states, is to clean house at Brussels - I for one would have no objection if the bodies in Brussels were more electable.  Maybe that was one of the points of the European Constitution-I wouldn't know, and neither would many other people, because the idiots who worked it out couldn't make it concise and to the point.  Later today, I'm going to find a copy of the proposal, peruse it, and see if there is any actual merit in there.

The full text:

http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/lstoc1_en.htm

What you really want to read however, is the Laeken declaration, which specified the intention of the constitution and where Europe is going:

http://europa.eu.int/constit...._en.htm

Quote[/b] ]It would seem that everyone has been bitching about different things in the past few weeks as regards Europe, and if all we can do is agree to disagree, then maybe there's not much point for closer Union after all.

Mostly bitching about their national politicians. Well, it was actually a lot of things they were bitching about, many of them contradictory and some plain silly (like the French saying that globalization is an Anglo-Saxon plot etc).

The key question is however again of what the EU should be. And there everybody but Britain agrees that it should be a political union. Everybody but Britain agrees that a common  foreign and defence policy is the goal (Yes, including my little neutral Sweden). And everybody agrees that the Euro will sooner or later be the currency of the Union (Both the Swedish and Danish rejections, were a "wait and see" - both governments and the major political parties have joining the Eurozone on the agenda).