European Politics Thread.

[xawery 0]

Let's not forget that Gotovina's popularity among the Croatians is far from insignificant. Another factor which does little to ease the tensions.

Incidentally, I disagree with you Denoir about the situation being handled poorly. I confess upfront that my knowledge about the issue is fairly limited, but I see no problem in excercising political pressure to bring a suspect to justice. Through the lense of realpolitik, upsetting the relationship with a poor candidate country in times of little support for further EU expansion does not sound like a blocking argument. I admit this is relatively short-sighted, but given the politicians' short horizon it is not entirely illogical

I do realise that this pressure has far-reaching consequences for Croatia. It damages its reputation and, consequently, its economy. On the other hand, I can imagine that Sweden, the UK and the Netherlands are keen to reaffirm the International Criminal Court's raison d'etre. What better way to achieve that than by ensuring the effectiveness of one of its predecessors, the International Criminal Tribunal?

[denoir 0]

Let's not forget that Gotovina's popularity among the Croatians is far from insignificant.

It was pretty insignificant except for the ultra-nationalist, until EU got involved. That's the main problem, the ultra-nationalists are gaining popularity very rapidly, and we know what happened in the region last time when that happened. If the EU is supposed to support stability, it is doing an abysimal job.

Quote[/b] ]Incidentally, I disagree with you Denoir about the situation being handled poorly. I confess upfront that my knowledge about the issue is fairly limited, but I see no problem in excercising political pressure to bring a suspect to justice.

The problem is that the pressure isn't doing anything but piss off the Croatians and help Gotovina away from the Hague. The party that is in power is pro-EU and more than willing to send any suspects to the Hague. They are not the problem, but the remnants of Tudjmans supporters, who still wield some influence. The only effect you get by kicking the cooperative government is that the very uncooperative elements will gain popularity and power. And that's very bad, both for the EU and for Croatia.

Quote[/b] ]Through the lense of realpolitik, upsetting the relationship with a poor candidate country in times of little support for further EU expansion does not sound like a blocking argument.

That candidate country will have veto rights in a few years over policies that will affect you, so it might be a good idea to be on good terms with them. It's never good to have a pissed-off member state.

As for little support for further EU expansion, that mostly refers to Turkey. It's the pro-expansion block that is delaying Croatia's entry. What you are missing, I think is the economic picture. According to Eurostat, Croatia is doing economically significantly better than most of the 10 member states that joined last year. So of course it's neighbours are quite keen on being able to do business. Without EU membership, this brings excess cost.

Quote[/b] ]I do realise that this pressure has far-reaching consequences for Croatia. It damages its reputation and, consequently, its economy.

Well, given their economic growth and the constantly increasing influx of tourists, I would say that in real economic terms, and especially economic terms, Croatia is being hurt less than the EU is. That is also a contributing factor to the EU-scepticism - people feel that they're well off without the EU anyway. Which again creates difficulties in the future. As you might have noticed, the EU-sceptical countries are the ones making most of the trouble in the Union.

Quote[/b] ]

On the other hand, I can imagine that Sweden, the UK and the Netherlands are keen to reaffirm the International Criminal Court's raison d'etre. What better way to achieve that than by ensuring the effectiveness of one of its predecessors, the International Criminal Tribunal?

Well, that's the romantic view of things anyway. And I'm sure that some people do reason like that. It seem to me however to be more than a coincidence that the countries that have had historically friendly relationships with Croatia (Austria, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Slovenia..) are advocating an immediate entry while the countries that had warm relationships with ex-Yugoslavia are against it.

Incidentally, it was the same, otherwise expansion-friendly, trio who were initially opposed to Slovenia's entry talks. And Slovenia did not have a war, and is even richer than some of the original EU15 countries. It's a bit too much to be a coincidence. So I think the whole thing has more to do with a view that the whole former Yugoslavia should still be treated as one entity. The UK has even on several occasions stated this view, which shows a quite alarming ignorance of what the region looks like economically and politically.

And this from my point of view is the second very grave error that the EU has made in its expansion policy. The other one is letting Cyprus in before the division of the island was resolved ( and we are reaping the lovely consequences of that as we speak)

[iNeo 0]

There was an election for the church in Sweden and the immigration critical Sverigedemokraterna increased their vote count from the last election, and this is what governmental Socialdemokraterna's party secretary Marita Ulvskog said about that:

"It's important that we established parties don't make them legitimate by treating them as a party like others."

(http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/inrikes/did_10573546.asp)

I.e. still ignoring them in local councils etc. How democratic.

I mean if the people votes on them, then it's the will of the people and they shouldn't be able to oppose against that. Yet they do and no one cares. Unless things change, I bet one day the more extreme ones will protest against this in other ways.

[EiZei 0]

Why should they cooperate with parties that are fundamentally against their values and democracy?

[denoir 0]

I.e. still ignoring them in local councils etc. How democratic.

It's quite democratic. They got to participate in the elections and nobody is denying them access to local council meetings in the few places that they actually got a seat. The other parties are exercising their free will not to cooperate with such scum. But their democratic legal rights have in no way been impaired.

It's not a violation of democratic principles that you don't like somebody. That is not only perfectly normal, but it has to be that way. When you vote for a right-wing party, you don't want them cooperating with a left-wing party, that works for some completely different ideas and goals. The same way, when you vote for a mainstream party, you don't want them being all friendly and chummy with scum like SD.

Had they been willing to do that.. well, they would lose more than just my vote.

[Frisbee 0]

The same thing happened with the Flemish (extreme) right party Vlaams Blok (now Vlaams Belang).

They're not trying to force them out, just not working with them, and there's pretty much nothing wrong with that.

[Pathy 0]

Dave Cameron used to be our local MP, came and talked at our school once, back when i was there, seemed OK, but....hes a politician

[Bordoy 0]

Dave Cameron used to be our local MP, came and talked at our school once, back when i was there, seemed OK, but....hes a politician  

Most MP's are politicians

At my college we've had Blair, Ken Clarke, Alan Simpson, Graham Allen and a few more i can' remember who though.

[iNeo 0]

Why should they cooperate with parties that are fundamentally against their values and democracy?

They're not. They're democrats.

And it's not about cooperating, but letting into discussions. Ulvskog says "not treating them as a party like others", ie they may disagree with many parties but none are treated the same way as SD, and that they "must not make them legitimate" ie they're not accepted though they're democratically elected.

[EiZei 0]

Why should they cooperate with parties that are fundamentally against their values and democracy?

They're not. They're democrats.

So were the nazis.. initially. And no matter what you name your party it's still rotten deep inside.

These kinds of populist parties are not sustainable in the long run since they cant deliver what they promise so in the long run theyll lead up to suppression of any opposition.

[denoir 0]

And it's not about cooperating, but letting into discussions. Ulvskog says "not treating them as a party like others", ie they may disagree with many parties but none are treated the same way as SD, and that they "must not make them legitimate" ie they're not accepted though they're democratically elected.

The other parties are also democratically elected and they represent 99% of the voters (SD got about 1% last elections). This is not a question of the government vs SD, it's a question of relationships between parties, and that has nothing to do with democracy.

SD represents a relatively extreme view, it's party leaders are to a large degree convicted criminals. So of course no normal politician is going to be nice to them. And should they, then they are failing the people that voted for them, the 99% who don't support SD.

[Bordoy 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4279562.stm

Quote[/b] ]Polish centre-right claim victory

Political parties from the centre-right have secured victory in Poland's parliamentary elections.

With 90% of votes counted, Law and Justice Party (PiS)polled 27%, ahead of the Civic Platform (PO) on 24%.

The vote is being seen as a major snub to the ruling left, who have been hit by scandal and seen unemployment rocket to 18%, highest in the European Union.

The polls are Poland's first since joining the EU in May 2004.

The elections chose the 460-member lower house of parliament while the country will go back to the polls in two weeks to elect a new president.

Law and Justice leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski is expected to become Poland's next prime minister.

His identical twin brother, Lech Kaczynski, is running for president.

'A new idea'

Turnout among the 30 million Polish voters was about 40%, compared to 46% at the last election in 2001.

The figure was the lowest in a parliamentary election since the fall of Communism in 1989

Negotiations over a coalition are expected to begin soon, with the free marketeers of the PO likely to fight for a strong say in a government led by Mr Kaczynski's PiS, which favours tax breaks and greater investment in welfare services.

But any coalition will have much work to do if it is to restore the nation's trust in its politicians, says the BBC's Adam Easton in Warsaw.

He says the liberal PO, whose flat tax plans made them the favourite party of business, will be the junior partner.

But it looks like they may have to shelve their tax plan because Law and Justice say it will hurt the poor, he adds.

Jaroslaw Kaczynski hailed the result as a victory for the PiS, a point conceded by his PO opponent Donald Tusk.

"We have won as a party, and what's more important we have won as a program, as a certain idea for Poland," Mr Kaczynski said. "We must restore trust in the state, something which has been highly compromised in recent years."

Twin arrangement

Mr Kaczynski said his party would concentrate on building a stable coalition in the weeks before the presidential election.

He has pledged not to accept the role of prime minister if his brother wins the presidency.

Since the fall of communism in 1989, no Polish government has been re-elected.

The ruling Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) trailed in a disappointing fourth place behind a radical farmers' party, the Self-Defence Party, which won a 12% share.

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Marek Belka the party took Poland into the European Union, but has not been ignominiously dismissed from office.

Two others also won seats: the League of Polish Families and the Peasants' Party.

Results:

Law and Justice: 27% (152)

Civic Platform: 24% (133)

Self-Defence: 12% (57)

Democratic Left Alliance: 11% (56)

League of Polish families: 8% (33)

Peasants' Party: 7% (27)

Will be 2 weeks time until they elect their President.

[xawery 0]

Will be 2 weeks time until they elect their President.

Well, I'm sure it's going to be great fun. Sigh.

I'm disgusted to see PiS win. Granted, that is not saying much seeing as Polish politics are stomach turning overall. No room whatsoever for a pragmatical approach, only emotional, ideological witchhunts. 4 years of right; they bollock it up. 4 years of left; they bollock it up. 4 years of right; they bollock it up. 4 years of left - yes, they bollock it up as well. Now, we get four years of right again, with a homophobic, moralist and self-righteous party in control. Bah.

I would much rather see the SDPL win: The Polish Social Democracy. Borowski is the only politician who managed to retain a decent level of integrity while in the SLD. It would be nice to see him become the President in two weeks...

[Bordoy 0]

http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet....arkbait

Quote[/b] ]The RSPCA is shocked and appalled at the use of live dogs and cats as bait in shark fishing, reported recently on the island of Réunion in the Indian Ocean.

It is understood that stray animals are rounded up by local fishermen for the purpose.

RSPCA International senior programme manager Paul Littlefair says: "This is one of the most brutal and distressing stories that we've come across. The use of a live animal in this illegal and barbaric way, involving the binding of its legs with wire and piercing of the muzzle with large hooks, is unjustifiably cruel.

"Given Réunion's status as a French overseas département, we strongly urge the French government to take immediate steps to enforce its animal protection legislation and end this horrific practice.

Members of the public should address their concerns to the French embassy to help put pressure on those in charge in order to bring this ghastly activity to an immediate halt."

I won't post the picture as it is truly shocking. If the French goverment really want to regain international respect (and from me) they need to start by banning this and enforcing the ban aswell.

[Supah 0]

http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet....arkbait

Quote[/b] ]The RSPCA is shocked and appalled at the use of live dogs and cats as bait in shark fishing, reported recently on the island of Réunion in the Indian Ocean.

It is understood that stray animals are rounded up by local fishermen for the purpose.

RSPCA International senior programme manager Paul Littlefair says: "This is one of the most brutal and distressing stories that we've come across. The use of a live animal in this illegal and barbaric way, involving the binding of its legs with wire and piercing of the muzzle with large hooks, is unjustifiably cruel.

"Given Réunion's status as a French overseas département, we strongly urge the French government to take immediate steps to enforce its animal protection legislation and end this horrific practice.

Members of the public should address their concerns to the French embassy to help put pressure on those in charge in order to bring this ghastly activity to an immediate halt."

I won't post the picture as it is truly shocking. If the French goverment really want to regain international respect (and from me) they need to start by banning this and enforcing the ban aswell.

Yeah its much worse then starting and backing wars based on lies, fraud and faked intelligence! Shame on france for ..... some of its citizens killing some stray dogs in a gruesome manner. Seriously, stuff like this has no place in this thread.

[Bordoy 0]

http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet....arkbait

Quote[/b] ]The RSPCA is shocked and appalled at the use of live dogs and cats as bait in shark fishing, reported recently on the island of Réunion in the Indian Ocean.

It is understood that stray animals are rounded up by local fishermen for the purpose.

RSPCA International senior programme manager Paul Littlefair says: "This is one of the most brutal and distressing stories that we've come across. The use of a live animal in this illegal and barbaric way, involving the binding of its legs with wire and piercing of the muzzle with large hooks, is unjustifiably cruel.

"Given Réunion's status as a French overseas département, we strongly urge the French government to take immediate steps to enforce its animal protection legislation and end this horrific practice.

Members of the public should address their concerns to the French embassy to help put pressure on those in charge in order to bring this ghastly activity to an immediate halt."

I won't post the picture as it is truly shocking. If the French goverment really want to regain international respect (and from me) they need to start by banning this and enforcing the ban aswell.

Yeah its much worse then starting and backing wars based on lies, fraud and faked intelligence! Shame on france for ..... some of its citizens killing some stray dogs in a gruesome manner. Seriously, stuff like this has no place in this thread.

Did i say they should back wars? NO

Do most people, especially in the UK, like the French govement or its people? NO

Have people stopped buying any french goods? YES

But take this issue out and it should still be banned anyway, don't care if they are English or French tbh.

[denoir 0]

EU opens Turkey membership talks [bBC]

..after Austria lifted its objections. Turkey will probably not be able to join the Union before 2020 as they have to basically rebuild their political system from scratch to meet the EU requirements.

And EU starts Croatia talks [bBC] after Carla de la Ponte (surprisingly) said that the Croatian government is now fully cooperating with the Hague. Most likely this was a part of the deal to appease Austria that had been strongly pro-Croatia and anti-Turkey. Croatia will probably join the Union in 2008. The original plans were for 2007 but due to the six month delay with the negotiations, it will probably take a bit longer.

I'm personally a bit split about Turkey. Today they are certainly not ready to join up, but in 15-20 years, who knows? Still, it seems like a somewhat odd priority to me. I'd sooner think that Ukraine et al would be a more natural choice.

I'm still a bit curious why the UK has been so interested in getting Turkey to join. I suspect however that the motives are not altruistic, but more that they hope to weaken the EU as a political entity. For every larger nation that joins, the decision making becomes more difficult. Turkey with its cultural and political differences could indeed spell trouble for Union level decision making. But that's just a theory.

[Supah 0]

EU opens Turkey membership talks [bBC]

..after Austria lifted its objections. Turkey will probably not be able to join the Union before 2020 as they have to basically rebuild their political system from scratch to meet the EU requirements.

And EU starts Croatia talks [bBC] after Carla de la Ponte (surprisingly) said that the Croatian government is now fully cooperating with the Hague. Most likely this was a part of the deal to appease Austria that had been strongly pro-Croatia and anti-Turkey. Croatia will probably join the Union in 2008. The original plans were for 2007 but due to the six month delay with the negotiations, it will probably take a bit longer.

I'm personally a bit split about Turkey. Today they are certainly not ready to join up, but in 15-20 years, who knows? Still, it seems like a somewhat odd priority to me. I'd sooner think that Ukraine et al would be a more natural choice.

I'm still a bit curious why the UK has been so interested in getting Turkey to join. I suspect however that the motives are not altruistic, but more that they hope to weaken the EU as a political entity. For every larger nation that joins, the decision making becomes more difficult. Turkey with its cultural and political differences could indeed spell trouble for Union level decision making. But that's just a theory.

Israel is more european in its politics and values. I think we should have Israel join europe before a country which appears to be wanting to return to theocracy. Like turkey's prime minister said "We have an agreement inshallah" if allah wills it .... Yeah seems like a great candidate to join politically secular europe.

[EiZei 0]

EU opens Turkey membership talks [bBC]

..after Austria lifted its objections. Turkey will probably not be able to join the Union before 2020 as they have to basically rebuild their political system from scratch to meet the EU requirements.

And EU starts Croatia talks [bBC] after Carla de la Ponte (surprisingly) said that the Croatian government is now fully cooperating with the Hague. Most likely this was a part of the deal to appease Austria that had been strongly pro-Croatia and anti-Turkey. Croatia will probably join the Union in 2008. The original plans were for 2007 but due to the six month delay with the negotiations, it will probably take a bit longer.

I'm personally a bit split about Turkey. Today they are certainly not ready to join up, but in 15-20 years, who knows? Still, it seems like a somewhat odd priority to me. I'd sooner think that Ukraine et al would be a more natural choice.

I'm still a bit curious why the UK has been so interested in getting Turkey to join. I suspect however that the motives are not altruistic, but more that they hope to weaken the EU as a political entity. For every larger nation that joins, the decision making becomes more difficult. Turkey with its cultural and political differences could indeed spell trouble for Union level decision making. But that's just a theory.

Israel is more european in its politics and values. I think we should have Israel join europe before a country which appears to be wanting to return to theocracy. Like turkey's prime minister said "We have an agreement inshallah" if allah wills it .... Yeah seems like a great candidate to join politically secular europe.

Does'nt seem to be that much more religious than certain newer eastern members (*cough*poland*cough*).

[InteractiveBohemian 0]

Do most people, especially in the UK, like the French govement or its people? NO

Have people stopped buying any french goods? YES

-The contrary is also (very) true.

-We don't care.

[hellfish6 7]

Like turkey's prime minister said "We have an agreement inshallah" if allah wills it .... Yeah seems like a great candidate to join politically secular europe.

You've never heard a politician reference God? In America we get that all the time "God Bless America," "God willing," etc. In Europe you never, ever hear anything like that from your politicians?

So just because this dude is Muslim you're holding him up against a double standard? You think Israel is gonna be non-religious too?

[marcusjm 0]

And why should religion matter? EU is an economic partnership first and forthmost. Sure, some want to make a "United European States" out of it but most do not. At least not here in the Northern countries.

Turkey is a big economy and important partner to Europe (plus NATO and USA). Not to forget that it's also Israels closest partner in the region(which isn't so strange for those who know a little history on the subject). I don't even understand why so many think it's strange, Turkey has been involved in European politics for the better part of the former millenia. It's only natural that they do so inside EU too.

In fact Turkey will probably contribute more to the total EU economy than most of the newer members. Much due to it's huge population and fast developing economy.

Becides it has really boosted the work with human rights and general improvements of Turkish attitude towards minorities.

marcus

[denoir 0]

Like turkey's prime minister said "We have an agreement inshallah" if allah wills it .... Yeah seems like a great candidate to join politically secular europe.

You've never heard a politician reference God? In America we get that all the time "God Bless America," "God willing," etc. In Europe you never, ever hear anything like that from your politicians?

Actually, no, they don't use any "God" references. At least not in Sweden or on Union level. Can't speak for all member states though.

To be honest, I get a bit freaked out every time I hear a US politician speak because of the numerous religious references.

As for Turkey, it is a tad odd when it comes to secularity. The government and the political system in general is über-secular. They literally had to kill thousands of people to get it that way. The people however are in general very religious, which does indeed clash with most of the rest of Europe. There are of course other exceptions such as Malta and Poland.

Quote[/b] ]And why should religion matter? EU is an economic partnership first and forthmost. Sure, some want to make a "United European States" out of it but most do not. At least not here in the Northern countries.

Not at all true. The EU is a political partnership first and foremost. In the average member states 60% of the laws are union laws and 40% national laws. As for what people in the Nordic countries want, I suggest you check out the Eurobarometer opinion polls:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb63/eb63_en.htm

It's common foreign policy, common defence etc In the Nordic countries the Euro-scepticism is directed at the EU as it is today rather than against it as a concept. As you can see from the opinion polls, people want more political integration, not less

[hellfish6 7]

Like turkey's prime minister said "We have an agreement inshallah" if allah wills it .... Yeah seems like a great candidate to join politically secular europe.

You've never heard a politician reference God? In America we get that all the time "God Bless America," "God willing," etc. In Europe you never, ever hear anything like that from your politicians?

Actually, no, they don't use any "God" references. At least not in Sweden or on Union level. Can't speak for all member states though.

To be honest, I get a bit freaked out every time I hear a US politician speak because of the numerous religious references.

Really? I'm actually quite suprised - I'm sure I've heard Schroeder or Chirac reference God at least once.

But yeah, American politics and God always creeps me out too. It's a HUGE part of politics here.

Someday we'll have an election where voter turnout is going to be good and representative of the overall population and things will change, but that day might be a long way off.

[marcusjm 0]

Like turkey's prime minister said "We have an agreement inshallah" if allah wills it .... Yeah seems like a great candidate to join politically secular europe.

You've never heard a politician reference God? In America we get that all the time "God Bless America," "God willing," etc. In Europe you never, ever hear anything like that from your politicians?

Actually, no, they don't use any "God" references. At least not in Sweden or on Union level. Can't speak for all member states though.

To be honest, I get a bit freaked out every time I hear a US politician speak because of the numerous religious references.

As for Turkey, it is a tad odd when it comes to secularity. The government and the political system in general is über-secular. They literally had to kill thousands of people to get it that way. The people however are in general very religious, which does indeed clash with most of the rest of Europe. There are of course other exceptions such as Malta and Poland.

Quote[/b] ]And why should religion matter? EU is an economic partnership first and forthmost. Sure, some want to make a "United European States" out of it but most do not. At least not here in the Northern countries.

Not at all true. The EU is a political partnership first and foremost. In the average member states 60% of the laws are union laws and 40% national laws. As for what people in the Nordic countries want, I suggest you check out the Eurobarometer opinion polls:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb63/eb63_en.htm

It's common foreign policy, common defence etc In the Nordic countries the Euro-scepticism is directed at the EU as it is today rather than against it as a concept. As you can see from the opinion polls, people want more political integration, not less

So this is why Swedes voted against Euro? And most likelly would have voted against the constitution (as did the French).

A party with it's main goal to reduce EU to it's original plan became one of the largest in the last EU-parliament election. Their goal;: EU to remain free trade/movement idea. Not measure bananas .

Norway of course don't want to be a member at all. Why should they? With their oil money they can soon buy Europe .

As for the killings. Turkey has a dark history but what European nation doesn't? Austria and Croatia are probably the among the last nations with rights to complain about that.

marcus