Quote:Incoming Spanish PM Hints U-Turn on EU Constitution
The new Socialist-led government in Spain has indicated an immediate softening of Madrid's tough stance on the draft European constitution. Speaking on Monday to the radio station Cadena Ser, prime minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said he wants to "speed up" negotiations on the constitution. Zapatero said he believes Europe can quickly come to an agreement on a "sensible power balance" for the enlarged EU. Describing the Europe Union as the natural platform for Spanish foreign policy, Zapatero signaled a dramatic shift in policy from the Aznar administration, which was voted out of power on Sunday. For the past six months, Spain, along with Poland, has been holding out against a proposed new system of voting weights in the constitution. Negotiations over the draft text collapsed in December. The new system proposes that decisions be taken on the basis of a double majority of both EU population (60 percent) and member states (50 percent) - and would leave both Madrid and Warsaw relatively less better off than they are now.
(source: EUobserver.com via
DW-World.de)
Walter, when does the new PM take office?
I'm not sure - at first, he has to built up his government, than the Spanish king will have to except that ... I really don't know - it is likely to be in a few weeks time.
cicerone imposter wrote:Walter, I have some idea how that works, because on discussion boards about Israel, I have been called an "anti-Semite," because I do not agree with most of Sharon's policies.
c.i. - It is unfortunate that some people claim such things. Criticism of Irael's activities as a state (and a belligerent one at that) is not the same thing as anti-semitism...it's just a criticism of a particular set of policy decisions. With you all the way!
KP
The European Parliament's Justice and Home Affairs Committee voted Thursday to condemn a airline passenger data-sharing agreement between the US and the European Commission , a move which may be a prelude to a court challenge to the pact before the European Court of Justice. EU legislators object to the apparent infringement of European privacy rules by US collection of credit card and other personal information on arriving air passengers.
More
HERE
Remarkable. It is, after all a national border they will cross on entry. This committee can do what it wishes, but landing rights are up to the government of the U.S., not the EU. I doubt that a WTO case could be made from the trade implicationsof all this. Europe has more to lose than the U.S. here. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.
Sorry, George, but the US wants (and a couple of countries like France and Germany already provide these datas) the dat from the country of origin BEFORE the passengers have crossed the border.
Homeland Security and European Commission Reach Agreement on PNR Data
It's really up to wait for the court's decission.
Not quite Walter. Landing rights are at the sole discretionof the U.S. The alternative is a several hour delay at customs & immigration after arrival on European carriers. If U.S. carriers are getting quicker treatment at airports of entry then the matter will quickly degenerate to a trade issue.
georgeob1 wrote: Landing rights are at the sole discretionof the U.S. The alternative is a several hour delay at customs & immigration after arrival on European carriers. If U.S. carriers are getting quicker treatment at airports of entry then the matter will quickly degenerate to a trade issue.
No doubt. But some think, that this is against EU (and national law), since we have guaranteed privacy rules here. (Most national data protection offices didn't like the EU decission, too.)
I agree that the data decisions are for the EU & its members to make. The landing right and customs/immigration decisions are ours to make. Given what has already happened, I believe our concerns and the desired remedy, are reasonable. If for whatever reasons our European friends are unwilling to comply, then we should simply either deny landing rights or, on arrival, hold all passengers in the aircraft for five or so hours until the required checks are completed. No need for argument about it between governments. The European airlines, however, will likely feel that they are being hurt badly..
Well, certainly in return, the US (abd you) wouldn't mind, if your data are sent in advance to any other country, you want to visit as well.
I think, you will agree on that, since privacy isn't that big issue in the US as it is in Europe (e.g., we have the constitutional rights that everyone storing personal data about others has to obtain consent from these persons and has to allow them access to their records)(acknowledged by the Federal Constitutional Court as well as it is EU-law).
I agree. We have similar privacy laws but, in view of the terrorist attacks, have made certain exceptions. It is up to Europe to decide how it may wish to address these issues.
The very interesting situation today in Spain, now that the bombings and the thinly veiled threats in the "Truce" announcement have both occurred, will tell us all a good deal about how Spain intends to deal with the Islamist threat. Notwithstanding the previous positions of Mr. Zapatero I don't think that bowing to such deeds, after they have occurred, is either a wise or a prudent policy.
Well, I really can't see that and how he is bowing.
But might be, looking south-west gives another picture then your more eastward view :wink:
I believe the distance from the Islamist threat is a better predictor of behavior (and viewpoint) than the aspect angle. Spain is very close. From here it looks very much like bowing. History offers a few lessons in this area.
<How would the world would look like, if the Spanish crown hadn't given some ships to an Italian navigator ...>
Interesting concept. Perhaps Germany and Austria would have won WWI. There would still be the Bolshevik revolution to contend with. If you made it through the 20th century you would still have had to face the Islamist resurgence.
George
Do you appreciate that we Europeans don't want to treat all Muslims as a threat? We don't see the connection between Al Quaeda and Iraq.
The majority of European citizens don't like the war that was waged, one year ago, or the way in which the USA has carved up the restructuring to benefit its own companies without regard to the wider problems in Iraq.
Most of us still see the invasion as a selfish act on the part of those Republicans who commanded it.
Now, add all that background to the fact that there is a European law, which would have to be changed to allow sharing of personal information with the USA, which is deemed not to have equivalent protection (I know, I've had to deal with this for work, even when I've been acting to uphold a US law - the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).
We understand that the USA has concerns about allowing undesirables/potential terrorists into the country but there is no easy way to wave a magic wand and get rid of our laws to satisfy the bullying demands of our American friends. So we'll have to either (a) agree to share our information on a one-by-one level or (b) wait longer to be processed at US immigration.
As for Spain "bowing" - what a load of complete sh!t. They didn't like what the previous leader had done so they got rid of him. If the USA had a fairer electoral system, which was not dependent on raising millions just to compete, then Bush would stand a much greater chance of being defeated in November, which would be a relief to most of us, this side of the pond.
KP
Pete,
I don't claim to be a good judge of what "most Europeans" believe or don't believe. I'm not willing to accept any particular person as a necessarily good judge of that.
I do believe there is a real, objective threat to the West (a perhaps outmoded reference to Europe + America, etc.) posed by the Islamist resurgence we are now witnessing - and it is much more proximate to Europe than America.
I also believe it is a harvest of the almost entirely European mistreatment and misgovernance of Muslim peoples over the last several centuries (remember that until 1948 the majority of Moslems in the world were governed by European colonial powers.).
The current Islamist focus on America is merely the result of our attempts to lead a counterpoint to it. The long-term threat to Europe is far greater than that to us, and its existence is quite independent of the distaste many Europeans have for our policies. If we were to withdraw from the fray, you would still be confronted with a serious challenge and a serious danger. Given the different demographics and resources of the European and Islamist worlds, I would not conclude that an European victory was particularly likely. History is replete with examples of cultivated cultured and well developed economic systems overcome and destroyed by crude but fiercely motivated relative barbarians.
The intervention in Iraq was intended to place a modern secular government in a part of the Moslem world in a place where the development of such a structure was less unlikely than other places, and in a place that is particularly central to key unfolding events. It was an act intended to undermine the causes of Islamist fury, not eliminate its current manifestations. You are certainly welcome to advocate and take your own approach to all this, but the "link to al Quaeda" bit trivializes an important and real issue.
I agree with you that it is up to the EU and its members to decide on the transmission of passenger data to our security apparatus. I was glad to see your expressed acceptance of our right to, absent the EU's cooperation, simply hold the passengers on incoming European flights on the aircraft for several hours while the various checks are accomplished. However permit me to anticipate the howls of European protest that will no doubt accompany such an action. While we are undoubtedly attempting to force our solution on you, there is little doubt in my mind that you are equally willing to do the same with us. It is the lack of European willingness to cooperate with us in this matter that is most interesting to me - at least from an historical perspective.
I am frequently mistified by the ease with which you and others from Europe take sectarian positions with respect to our internal political processes. I noted your comments on your perceptions of the fairness of our election system. Why are such things so much more common on these threads coming from Europeans than from Americans? Have you attained a much greater degree of perfection in all this , or is it something else?
