FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

A first question: why is Germany talking about setting up a European Monetary Fund? Let me answer that with another question. Is Germany really pushing for the creation of an EMF any time soon? True, the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, launched the idea this weekend. And in a meeting with foreign correspondents in Berlin on Monday, Mrs Merkel said: "We want to be able to solve our problems in the future without the IMF." But in the same meeting, as the FT reported on its front page this morning, she expressed the view that creating such a fund would require changing the EU treaties. Given that a changed treaty would need ratification in all 27 countries, and given the agonies that went into ratifying Lisbon, and given the pledge of Britain's Conservatives to hold a referendum on any transfer of powers to the EU if they are in government when such a move is proposed, Mrs Merkel was effectively signalling that the idea is one for the far horizon. There is also the small detail that the German monetary establishment, in the form of the head of the German central bank and one of the top German officials at the European Central Bank, have jumped on the idea of an EMF, calling a dangerous distraction and a "sideshow" from the central priority of maintaining fiscal discipline within the euro zone.

OK, so I'm looking at the websites of the different parties, and seeing what I can find on Croatian accession to the EU. Interesting exercise, actually.

• The Socialist Party (SP) website emphasizes that EU accession has taken place "too quickly and too carelessly". It notes that the party was against the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and that most countries that have been given a prospect of EU membership - and it mentions Iceland, Turkey, Macedonia and "the Western Balkans" here - still "have a long way to go". Croatia, however, seems to be OK: "The accession requirements, the so-called Copenhagen criteria, have to be upheld strictly. With the exception of Croatia, the SP therefore does not see any new member states join the EU in the upcoming years." The party does demand a referendum before any new country is accepted, however.
  
  
• The Green Left uses distinctly different language. EU expansion, the party's website starts off, "increases security in Europe. The EU is after all a zone of peace and prosperity" - although, it continues with a frown, it's true that there's really quite a lot of countries wanting to become members now. However, it sternly reminds the reader, "promises create debts", as a Dutch saying goes: "The EU can not leave he Western Balkans in the lurch, but must help these countries with the intensive reforms that are needed for EU accession." In practice, the path that the Green Left charts forward isn't actually all that different, however: "For most countries, this [process] will, even in the most favourable scenario, still last many years." The party believes that Turkey and Croatia "can join the EU as soon as they meet the criteria. Especially in the case of Turkey this will still last a long time. [..] Croatia is well underway to membership, but still has to push back corruption more."
  
  
• The Labour Party (PvdA) does not address the issue of EU expansion in general in its main "points of view" pages. Instead, it has a page only about the accession of Turkey. "A democratic, safe, stable and Europe-oriented Turkey constitutes an important interest of the EU," the page starts off, pointing out that as such a country, Turkey could become "an important fundament for durable peace and security in Europe." However, "the EU accession criteria are strict," and in light of existing deficiencies on human rights, the rule of law and democracy, there is currently "absolutely no prospect of establishing an accession date for Turkey."
  
  
• A boo to the Democrats D66 for making it harder to find this info. Once you dig up their party program, a 94 page PDF, however, there is a very concise point indeed, down on p.89, in the section about the EU: "Open for accession. The European Union is, in the view of D66, always open for new members. Countries - such as Turkey as well - can join the EU if they fulfill the accession criteria."
  
  
• The Christian-Democrats/CDA are also succinct, and their pro-European perspective is clear: "The CDA considers the expansion of the EU positive. European integration assures the EU member states of prosperity, peace, democracy and human rights. The Netherlands has an interest in this too. The CDA thinks the EU should deal carefully with new expansion. The countries that want to become members of the EU do first have to meet all criteria."
  
  
• The right-wing liberals of the VVD have an English translation of their party program! It's short and sternly worded about Turkey's accession chances: "Turkey does not enter the EU, as long as it does not meet 100% of the EU accession conditions (Copenhagen criteria) and all of the EU member states have expressed their support for membership themselves. Moreover, the accession negotiations must be stopped as longs as Turkey refuses to recognize Cyprus by not ratifying the Ankara Protocol." Nothing about other countries though. On their Dutch-language page about Europe, the VVD adds distinctly more woolly language: "The so-called Copenhagen criteria which new members must meet have been comprehensively integrated in the new treaty" - referring to the Lisbon treaty, I guess? - "and it will also be taken into consideration whether Europe can process such expansion. The VVD strongly agrees with this. The VVD is satisfied that the silence about the debate in Europe has now, partly thanks to the insistence of [the VVD], been broken."
  
  
• Surprisingly, the small, culturally conservative Christian Union also has an English translation of its program. It minces no words: "NO EXTENSION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ANY TIME SOON. The European Union has expanded significantly in recent years. Now is the time to reduce the pace of enlargement. Let us first concentrate on ensuring cooperation between the current 27 member states improves and find ways to increase the speed with which decisions are taken with so many member countries. If the European Union should permit new members in future, these countries must always be located on the European continent, such as Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and the countries of the Western Balkans. The ChristenUnie is of the opinion that due to geographical, historical, and cultural reasons Turkey cannot be permitted as a member of the EU. Turkey resorts under the European Neighbourhood Policy, however, and as such is eligible for special ties of cooperation and support. However, Turkey will then need to meet certain requirements: Freedom of religion, freedom of association and the freedom to establish political parties."
  
  
• The Freedom Party / PVV has a 59-page party program online. It has a one-sentence "solution" about EU expansion: "EU: Turkey in, the Netherlands out". LOL. To get an idea of the perspective that informs this "solution", the program has some choice words about the EU: "Another source of harm to our democracy goes by the name of European Union. The EU is starting to look ever more like the old Soviet Union. It's the EUssr. [..] Brussels tries to keep going with massive propaganda. But the billions of tax money that are being spent on it can't hide that EU nationalism can count on ever less support. [..] Economic and monetary cooperation is great, but the Netherlands as province of a European super state is something nobody is waiting for. So the EU should limit itself to a European Economic Community. We're going to take their flag down, their 'president' can go amuse his grandchildren and they can go sing their anthem under the shower. The Netherlands must stay!" That should bolster the PVV's standing as the DUtch equivalent of the Tea Party... this is the first time, in any case, that I've heard of the concept "EU nationalism".

The most interesting thing, I suppose, is that apart from the Freedom Party and the Christian Union, the Dutch parties really share a broad consensus on the subject. There are differences in tone and choice of language, but in practical terms, they all pretty much seem to agree on the basics.

Angela Merkel says multiculturalism in Germany is a failure.

Certainly there is an economic side to this, but I believe Frau Merkel was talking particularly about the cultural side of integration, of lack of integration, where many incomers do not adopt German ways or even attempts to learn the language properly, instead grouping together in foreign enclaves within the host country

All this will remain a challenge for us all - Europe will continue to need foreign labor to run its economy,

Assimilating large foreign populations is never easy for any country, and a good deal of social and economic turbulence accompanies it almost everywhere. Both the host group and the immigrants experience some cultural changes

As Walter hints at when the German identity feels like it is getting submerged into the EU stew and vanishing ...

Hell, they have already given up the Mark, the beer purity standards, and been inundated with cheap non local sausage...

Recently, concerns about “failed integration” and disappointing performance of second and third generation immigrants drew the attention of research to the determinants and prerequi-sites of integration. In contrast to U.S. literature, which pays more attention to host country attitudes, especially the existence of discrimination, Hönekopp (2000) and Suntum and Schlotböller (2002) see a poor education and lower qualifications of immigrants to Germany as main reasons for their poor performance in labour markets. This in turn prevents immi-grants from a more intensive social integration. Therefore, the authors recommend the im-provement of education and qualification levels of immigrants, in particular basic skills, such as their knowledge of German language and culture, as measures enhancing integration.

the sausages are actually now specially protected by EU-laws

the beer standard ("Reinheitsgebot") is as it was in 1516

How embarrassing for the German government that there was already proof of the failure of the immigrants to perform before the reforms of 04-05 which streamlined the process to get more immigrants. This turns out to be a case where the people were right all along about failed immigration policy, and the German Government excuse that they now realize that they made the mistake of importing inferior people does not help keep the government in the good graces of the people. The masses expect to be listened to, and expect there public policy experts to be competent.

On November 1, 2007, Germany implemented a set of reforms to the country's immigration system. 1 The reforms, announced in August, are an attempt to address problems of shortages in the skilled labor markets of Germany. 2 For many years, Germany has faced a growing shortage of skilled native-born workers needed to fill essential positions. 3 In the past decade, Germany has increasingly looked to immigration as a solution to this labor shortage. 4 Many Germans had hoped that these problems would be resolved by a controversial immigration reform in 2005. 5 However, foreigners attempting to work in Germany have continued to face sometimes insurmountable hurdles to entry and have instead gone to work in the more liberal economies of countries such as the United States and United Kingdom.