25
   

FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sun 15 May, 2005 03:25 pm
Quote:
SPIEGEL ONLINE - May 13, 2005,

German Papers

Let's Hear It for the EU ... or not

Thursday's approval of the EU constitution by Germany's parliament has got the German press philosophizing on the broader question of the direction the European Union is taking -- if it has one at all, that is.



Yes, no. Wider, deeper. Larger, smaller. The debate over the EU sometimes has the tendency to sound like a bad porn movie. Today's European Union is not only at a crossroads. It is at about seven. The current nail-biting countdown to the EU referendum in France at the end of May, added to the blink-and-you-miss-it acceptance of the constitution in the German parliament on Thursday, has left commentators throughout Europe wondering where, if anywhere, the EU is heading.

Just when you thought things had got hairy enough, the left-leaning Die Tageszeitung decides to make things even more exciting by calling for a Europe-wide referendum for any future constitutional changes in a front-page commentary.

For those who feel exhausted by the very thought of such an arduous task, the paper does concede that there are a few obstacles to overcome first. Such as the small question of how such an enterprise would work. "Would 50 percent of all the votes cast be counted as a majority? Or would it be necessary to reach this quota in each member state? And what about results from countries where less than 30 percent of the population actually voted?"

In a rare fit of optimism, however, the paper concludes that such problems are by no means insurmountable. "To ensure that satisfactory answers are found in time for the next constitutional reform, we should start debating the matter now. All across Europe." Presuming, of course, someone has the energy for such an endeavor.

Next to this modest proposal, the paper -- never shy about appearing unpatriotic -- has subverted the forbidden first verse of the German national anthem from "Deutschland über alles" to "Europe über alles". It also writes "Yippie, we are in. We have the constitution ... we are Europe, yeah, yeah, yeah. Ole, ole, ole. Super-Europe, here we come ... we are the champions, Europe we love you." Whether this is supposed to be euphoria at passing the constitution or an ironic bit of sarcasm, is not quite clear. Presumably the paper is just trying to be funny.

In a more serious tone the center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung calls the German parliament's acceptance of the European constitution an act of bravery. It writes that although the constitution is far from perfect, it is at least a step in the right direction. "A constitution in the hand, is worth two in the bush," it sagely paraphrases.

"Europe needs a constitution which ... everyone can understand and which, not only recognizes manufacturers and consumers, but also recognizes citizens with rights and duties." The paper goes on to say that this is unfortunately not what this particular draft promises. Or, rather, not yet.

"Should the German parliament have rejected this constitution because of what it lacks, the mistakes it makes and the deficits it has?" No, concludes the commentator. The fact that the German parliament has accepted this constitution is a sign of faith and hope in what is possible in the future.

The conservative Die Welt on the other hand is markedly less optimistic. The European Union has developed from what was supposed to be "a necessary alliance of states to encourage economic liberalization, into a gigantic structure that is vehemently pushing its way into political integration."

The paper also questions the fact that although the EU aims to become a more agile player on the world stage, it is continues tp grow in size. "No one knows what direction the Union is drifting in. Does Turkey belong? Should Russia join? Should Europe intervene as a stabilizing force in North Africa? The vagueness of the EU's intentions is unsettling."

A stronger European Union is detrimental to the power of individual member states, writes the commentator. "The transfer of national sovereign rights to Brussels is harmful both to democracy and to member states' individual responsibility."

The paper goes on to say that it is surprising how easily it is accepted by the general public that, in a globalized world, problems can only be solved on an EU level, rather than by the nation states themselves. Until now, it says, the EU has proven itself incapable of solving any of the issues which plague modern society. "National debt, economic growth, overregulation, unemployment and unnecessary levels of bureaucracy remain domestic issues."

The commentator concludes that whether or not Brussels is ever in the position to solve Europe's political problems, the fact remains that there is still nothing to match the sovereign nation state when it comes to democratic accountability.

The weekly newspaper Die Zeit, however, points out that the constitution succeeds in rectifying the much vilified democratic deficit for which the EU has long been criticized. Unlike other papers, rather than indulging in diatribes against the constitution or the EU, it takes the opportunity to summarize, in a front-page leader, what the new document actually contains.

"The constitution is the best thing that the community has produced since the Treaty of Rome," the paper writes, saying that it strengthens the rights of both member nations and EU citizens, in addition to increasing the Union's efficiency when dealing with the rest of the world.

The controversy sparked by the constitution is also explained by the writer. "For many critics this document goes too far, because it supposedly creates a "super state" and takes power out of the hands of the nation and the citizen. But for others it doesn't go far enough. Both in areas of social policy or in making the Union more democratic. Some demand more Europe. Others fear exactly that and call for less Europe. Not even the perfect agreement would satisfy both parties."

The paper does admit that mistakes have been made. The main one being, not to have held the referenda simultaneously all over Europe. This would have prevented protest voting against individual governments, as could well be the case in France later this month. Indeed, the writer concludes that a "No" in the French referendum would mean that "the Union would be paralyzed both internally and on the international stage ... Everything would be carried out with haggling and fudged compromises. Much better then, to accept this document and enable real political action."

Source
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 15 May, 2005 03:26 pm
It's not surprising to see some struggle in the adoption of the EU Treaty, but I'm sure there will be enough votes to pass the referendum.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Sun 15 May, 2005 04:05 pm
Passing the constitution (struggling or not) may be the least of their worries.

Europe's '70s Show
The Continent's economic death spiral.

BY BRIAN M. CARNEY
Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:01 a.m.

BRUSSELS--Is the European "social model" doomed? It's a question that comes up with increasing frequency as unemployment across Western Europe has climbed into the double digits and economic growth has ground to a virtual halt across much of the Continent.Updated GDP figures for the euro zone came out last week, and growth in the first quarter was a disappointing 0.5%. Last month both the European Commission and the European Central Bank cut their annual growth forecasts for the euro zone to 1.6% from 2%, and that ugly word recession is in the air.

The European Union's much-ballyhooed "Lisbon Agenda"--which was supposed to revive growth in Europe--was really not an agenda for reform at all. It was, instead, simply a statement of nice things the EU would like to see happen to the European economy to help it compete with the U.S.--such as raising employment levels, increasing R&D spending, and so on.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, almost none of those things have happened, and halfway through the 10-year timetable of "Lisbon," the European economy is in at least as bad a shape as it was when Lisbon was announced in 2000.

Given that Europe's streak of economic underperformance can now be measured in decades, perhaps a better question to ask is: Why does anyone think that a system of generous welfare benefits, high taxes and harsh restrictions on hiring and firing would ever produce anything like a dynamic, growing economy? Why does anyone assume that there is such a thing as a "European model," rather than just a collection of ill-conceived policies having a predictably depressing effect on the economy and job creation?

Of course, Europe did have growth, once. Indeed, for 25 years or so after World War II, European growth was something of an economic miracle, bringing countries like Germany out of hyperinflation and poverty into the first rank of world economies. Along with Germany, Britain, France and Italy rank among the world's biggest economies; and the European Union, considered as a whole, rivals the U.S. for the title of the world's largest economy.In other words, per the conventional wisdom, Europe had low unemployment and high growth in the past, so it can again. Unfortunately, the argument is wrong. A fundamental change occurred in Europe between the salad days of the 1950s and '60s and today, and Europe never recovered. In a word, the 1970s happened.

In 1965, government spending as a percentage of GDP averaged 28% in Western Europe, just slightly above the U.S. level of 25%. In 2002, U.S. taxes ate 26% of the economy, but in Europe spending had climbed to 42%, a 50% increase. Over the same period, unemployment in Western Europe has risen from less than 3% to 8% today, and to nearly 9% for the 12 countries in the euro zone. These two phenomena are related; in a country with generous welfare benefits, rising unemployment increases government spending rapidly.

But here a third element enters the picture, creating a feedback loop that explains why the Continent will never regain the halcyon days of postwar growth. As spending goes up, higher taxes must follow to pay for those benefits. But those taxes, usually payroll taxes, must be collected from a shrinking number of workers as jobs are cut. This in turn increases the cost of labor and decreases the benefit of working rather than collecting unemployment or welfare checks. As Martin Baily, a former head of Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, has described, this can lead to a spiral of rising taxes and falling employment, especially when welfare payments are high, as they are in most of Western Europe.

The result is predictable--more jobs are lost, the tax base shrinks, and taxes must go up further to pay for yet more welfare benefits, making work less attractive and not working more attractive.

In the 1970s, unemployment went up everywhere in the developed world. But on the Continent, it never went down. Britain and the U.S. both saw major economic reforms in the early 1980s and subsequently recovered from the '70s. The Continent did not, and it's endured the pain of that lost decade ever since. As the nearby chart shows, growth has gone up a little at times, then back down, but unemployment in Continental Europe has remained stuck in a narrow range for three decades.Western Europe jumped the track and fell into an economic ditch in the 1970s along with the rest of the world. But the Thatcher and Reagan reforms that pushed Britain and the U.S. back onto the rails were never tried on the Continent, and most of those countries have been spinning their wheels ever since.

Rather than ask whether the "model" is doomed, it would be better to question how it ever attained the status of a model at all. The welfare state worked in Europe for two decades because so few people needed it; growth was strong, employment high and actual benefits paid were low. When the world economy hit a speed bump following the collapse of the Bretton Woods arrangement in 1971, both government spending and unemployment went up, and the system of incentives and benefits now enshrined as the "European model" was tested and found wanting. The result is permanently higher unemployment and taxes, a nasty mix.

In the U.S. and the U.K., a combination of tax cuts, labor-market reforms and deregulation starting in the 1980s broke the downward spiral in which the Continent still finds itself. In the 1990s, the U.S. added welfare reform to the mix. Unfortunately, the prospects for Europe are not particularly bright right now. German unions--and even some members of the German government--have in recent weeks taken to denouncing American capitalists as "locusts" and "bloodsuckers." Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, perhaps the only politician in Europe who counts Ronald Reagan as a hero--and admits it--just had his coalition emasculated by special interests at home.

Sadly, it appears as if Europeans will be watching reruns of their own version of "That '70s Show" for years to come.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006692
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 15 May, 2005 04:13 pm
JustWonders, What your article just described in a nutshell is that the inflation rate in the EU countries are worse off than in the US, and the value of their currency is headed for big trouble. Simply put, there will be more Euros chasing less productive goods and services as their cost of social programs continue to escalate in relation to revenues (taxes collected). I think I'll hang on to my US currency for now and the long term.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Sun 15 May, 2005 04:29 pm
Yep. Plus, I always wondered why they like Jimmy Carter so well and now I know (inflation, high unemployment, 70's, etc.).

Smile
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Mon 16 May, 2005 01:12 am
Quote:
A poll conducted last week, published yesterday by the Journal du Dimanche and Wanadoo-Actu, put the "no" campaign ahead by 54 per cent to 46 per cent. This followed a series of polls showing the "yes" camp pulling slightly ahead or neck-and-neck with the "no".

The polling organisation IFOP blamed the slump in the "yes" vote on discontent with the loss of the Pentecost holiday and anger at the way that the issue had been handled by the centre-right Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin.
Source

[The German conservatives have announced, too, that they will abolish this public holiday, when being elected in government. Of courses, churches will here together with unions etc.]
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Mon 16 May, 2005 01:14 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Difficult to build the momentum required for universal approval.

That's true, especially since nobody seems to know what they're approving of. During the last three weeks, I have talked to two lawyers who were all for the constitution; but when I asked them to explain some of its terms to me, they soon admitted that they hadn't understood them. Moreover, last week, Deutschlandfunk had a 30 minute feature on the European constitution. (The occasion was the German Bundestag ratifying the constitution.) The arrangement of soundbites, as well as the reporting, were soundly pro-constitution. But at one point, the reporter mentioned that of the MPs he interviewed for the feature, almost none had fully read the constitution they were so enthusiastically supporting.

This is one of the things I find mind-boggling about the debate here in Germany: At issue is the fundamental mode in which Europeans are supposed to deal with each other. Our rulers draft a document that even professional lawyers have trouble understanding, and even full time legislators don't bother to read in full before voting on it. Still, every enlightened German is expected to be all for it, and enthusiastically so. I just don't get it. Confused
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 16 May, 2005 09:07 am
Quote, "This is one of the things I find mind-boggling about the debate here in Germany: At issue is the fundamental mode in which Europeans are supposed to deal with each other." Sounds similar to our tax codes in the US. "Mind-boggling" is an understatement. Wink
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Mon 16 May, 2005 09:20 am
In an earlier exchange I had expressed my reservations about a constitution that was so long and, as an inevitable result, was difficult to understand and not a plausible basis for the creation of a new unifying body of legal & social ideas that might animate a united Europe. Others correctly pointed out that the constitution necessarily embodies the complex set of treaties that have so far defined the EU and played such a large part in the quite remarkable unity achieved so far. I found this a persuasive argument, and still consider it valid.

The EU has indeed beaten the historical odds in the success it has achieved to date. Complexity and ambiguity have both been used with generally good effect to overcome the different wants and perspectives of the member states, enabling the collective body to work out new solutions and compromises as it goes on.

The down side of this might lie in the character of the new government that is so formed. Will it too embody the complexity and ambiguity that have so effectively smoothed its formation? To me that means the spectre of a government dominated by bureaucracy and disguised authoritarianism.

The EU is in new, largely uncharted, territory here. The very high quality of life achieved and enjoyed by the major western European states is the beacon attracting unity. How well this may continue amidst the demographic and economic challenges before them is an interesting question. How this may affect the evolving EU is yet another.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 17 May, 2005 11:49 am
Re: indicators on the referendum about the European constitution in the Netherlands, here's an interesting observation.

The Socialist Party, which is currently the most active campaigner against the Constitution, is picking up in the opinion polls. In the Political Barometer, it went from 14 to 17 seats (or 11%) in two weeks. In Maurice de Hond's SBS6 poll, the SP this week gained a seat and now has 18, the most it's had in two and a half years.

The Green Left, meanwhile, which supports the Constitution, this week dropped from 9 to 8 seats in de Hond's poll, and from 10 to 9 (or 6%) in the Political Barometer.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Tue 17 May, 2005 12:26 pm
please respond

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51783&highlight=
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 17 May, 2005 11:33 pm
Quote:
TV offensive fails to halt French drift to 'no' vote
By John Lichfield in Paris
18 May 2005


A majority of French voters have indicatedagain that they will reject the proposed EU constitution as France enters the "official" two-week campaign before the vote on 29 May.

As the official phase of campaigning began yesterday - with a barrage of publicly funded television declarations by the main parties - three polls suggested that the "no" camp had edged ahead once more.

Even in so politically volatile a country as France, no recent election or referendum campaign has seen such a complex series of reversals in public opinion. Support for the EU constitutional treaty has twice led in the polls, only to succumb to the vigorous - and sometimes misleading - campaigns conducted by treaty opponents of left and right.

The "yes" camp, including most mainstream politicians and much of the media, has found it difficult to convey a simple and compelling message.

Its problems were on view in the tourist heart of Paris yesterday. Most of the best-known centre-left female politicians in the country gathered at Trocadero, with the Eiffel Tower as a photogenic backdrop. They were launching the campaign of a group called "Left women for Yes".

Despite the presence of such political stars as Elisabeth Guigou, the former justice minister, Martine Aubry, mayor of Lille, and Ségolène Royal, the former health and education minister, only around 20 members of the public turned up. They were far out-numbered by journalists and by puzzled tourists.

Before the meeting, Mme Guigou admitted that the reversal of the polls made her a "little anxious". She said, however, that she thought that the start of the official campaign, with its nightly "party political" broadcasts, would shepherd many of the 30 per cent of undecided French voters into the "yes" camp.

From the platform before the Eiffel Tower, she gave a brief speech - intended mostly for the evening TV news - in which she told French women that they owed many of their social and political rights to European initiatives. She also condemned the "lies" of "no" campaigners on the left, who have alleged that the proposed treaty would remove the right to divorce.

Although the most recent polls show some erosion of the previously solid centre-right "yes" vote, it is clear that the referendum vote on Sunday week will be decided on the centre-left. Although the leadership of the Socialist and Green parties is pro-treaty, a small majority of socialist voters, and a large majority of Green voters, now say that they will reject the constitution.

The swings in the polls in the past month have been caused almost entirely by shifts of opinion among these moderate voters of the left. On the one hand, they are tempted to support their leadership. On the other, they are attracted by the arguments of the harder left, who portray the treaty as a fundamentalist capitalist plot to destroy public services and export French jobs.
Source
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Wed 18 May, 2005 09:14 am
Based on observations posted here by Nimh & Walter, and, as well as other media reports I have seen, things don't look so good for the forthcoming referendum on the EU constitution in France.

In some respects a French rejection of the Constitution - which will effectively foreclose the results in other countries voting soon - will be a less harmful outcome for European unity than perhaps would be French acceptance, followed by rejection in the Netherlands or the UK.

A French rejection will bring about a closer examination of the many fundamental issues facing the rapidly expanding union. French acceptance, followed by rejection elsewhere might just bring about increased political wrangling among the member states. In the long run, rejection by the French could bring a beneficial result.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Wed 18 May, 2005 10:47 am
A French rejection will perhaps bring back (or add) some of socialist/left views.


It surely will strengthen the left opposition to that constitution in other countries.

And on the (domestic) French political scene, it will be a big defeat for the conservative government as well as for the conservative president.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 18 May, 2005 11:00 am
I agree in a way with George, though for different reasons. They are basically to do with the political and media tendency to focus on a clear storyline, an easily identifiable interpretative framework.

Thus, for example, if the French reject the Constitution, with as it looks now dissenting leftists leading the way, the talk will all be of how "the voters" have rejected an all too technocratic, liberal (as in: free-market) approach. Have rejected a Constitution that was apparently too focused on Europe as an economic space, on business interests.

The commentaries will postulate that European integration thus far, with its focus on integrating economies to facilitate ever greater business flexibility and mobility, has created too little emotional loyalty among people who fear their social guarantees are at risk, who fear that the welfare state will only be crumbled down even more, and have little affinity with such an unempathetic union - have come to be afraid of it, in fact. Basically, Bolkestein, the Dutch free-market European Commissioner who's been much and fiercely maligned in the French press, will be blamed, pars pro toto.

In response, the drive to "correct" the Constitution to meet "the voters' wishes" will focus on giving national governments more rights to secure their own social policies, on including a more emphasized social dimension, etc.

If, on the other hand, the French accept the Constitution but subsequently the Dutch reject it, the flock of opinion will herd in a wholly different direction.

Editorials will outline, for example, how it's been the fear of immigration that's to blame, the loss of national control over the inflow of people, border controls etc. They will say that as long as Spain and Italy can declare blanket amnesties for illegal immigrants, the Dutch and Danish will be reluctant to agree to any greater intertwining of systems.

They will also assert that "the voters" have rejected a overly bureaucratic, overly interfering European Union that involves itself in even the smallest details of personal life. Politicians will agitatedly discuss how to deal with the apparent anger of "the people" about a too dirigistic EU, how the need is for the EU (and the Constitution) to slim down, less rules and regulations, less impositions of all kinds of bothersome (social, environmental, economic) norms on businesses and citizens.

Never mind that the whole storyline would be changed on the basis of a few percent more or less voting this way or that in one or the other country - that's simply how it often goes.

So in that respect I'm a little torn. I strongly want the Constitution to be adopted. But if it is going to fail, I'd rather want it to fail in France and have the backlash be all about how the EU needs to become more social, than have it fail in Holland and have panicked politicians resorting to an even more capitalistic Fortress Europe. Know what I mean?

There's only two things that would be the same in either case. The proposed accession of Turkey will be blamed; and what is actually mentioned in the Constitution about any of these issues will be wholly irrelevant to both the motives of the voters and the analyses of the pundits.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Wed 18 May, 2005 11:06 am
I agree, nimh.

Additionally, I think, it wouldn't be bad - well, not really, but just in your line, forseeing the reactions Laughing - when it failed in the UK first/only.
That would confirm prejudices (various - from 'The English always have been anti-Europe' to some Anti-/pro- American reactions.)
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Wed 18 May, 2005 11:07 am
I believe the fundamental challenges facing Europe today are dominated by the ongoing demographic shift and the demonstrable (and worsening) inability of their economies to sustain the social welfare and regulated labor market programs they now "enjoy". If a result of a rejection of the EU constitution is to embolden the Left wing parties in Europe then that , in my view, will be a setback for all. The sooner Europe faces these issues and gets on with unification and adaptation to a changed world the better for Europeans and everyone else as well.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Wed 18 May, 2005 03:38 pm
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41155000/gif/_41155989_eu_voting3_gra203.gif
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 18 May, 2005 03:52 pm
With most statistical sampling having an error rate of 3 percent, it looks pretty much like a 50/50 proposition at this point.
0 Replies
 
ConstitutionalGirl
 
  1  
Thu 19 May, 2005 07:12 pm
I saw your advirtisement Francis, your not that good looking, like Walter thinks you are, I still say the other guy is better looking.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

THE BRITISH THREAD II - Discussion by jespah
The United Kingdom's bye bye to Europe - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Sinti and Roma: History repeating - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
[B]THE RED ROSE COUNTY[/B] - Discussion by Mathos
Leaving today for Europe - Discussion by cicerone imposter
So you think you know Europe? - Discussion by nimh
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/16/2025 at 05:05:49