FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

<shrugs> Lots of people in Holland working part-time, especially women .. until moving to Hungary, I'd never formally worked more than a 32-hour week in my life (though that was added on to by much voluntarily-offered overtime, of course - but if I'd said "no" to that, I could have - others did).

In fact, there's ever more people working part-time. It's what enables ever more mothers and fathers to both work, without falling into as much of the I-never-get-to-see-my-kids trap that seems to be prevalent in the US (and perhaps the UK) - the social costs of which, I'm sure, will have to be paid for in some other way later. Good provision of daycare facilities are immensely important too - and they got em, in Sweden.

And all of that, without Holland or Sweden having had to put up trade barriers to most of the world or convince the global community of doing away with material goods altogether ...

Enough with the hyperbole or the tired either/or scenarios: either you succumb fully to the American way, or you're doomed to suffer imminent poverty. We managed to find another way so far, without having become much impoverished yet - we're basically richer than ever, richer than our parents were, and immensely much richer than our grandparents had been. We'll find some way in the future as well.

Nimh said "All those darned rules and regulations didnt get in place entirely just to please some personal fetish of Brussels bureucrats, you know. In general, people tend to repudiate needless bureaucratic overreach ... except for those laws and arrangements that make it easy for them to - you know, fill in or cross out depending on job or profession - retire on Ibiza, get that job in Berlin, vacation without changing money, sell their produce for guaranteed prices, rest reassured that products from cheap-labour countries that threaten competing your output out of business are held to the same safety and quality requirements, study abroad without lengthy residency applications, have your educational qualifications recognized in other countries - etc etc etc."

Are you saying that these rules and regulations dont already exist in Britains own laws? Or Hollands? Or Germany's?
1. Laws regarding safety standards have been built into our legal system before the EU was dreamt up, I would imagine the same goes for other member Countries. If a product arrives that doesnt match up to our stringent safety standards, it does not go on sale or get used. How does a Constitution change this?
2. EU members can retire where they like within the EU at the moment, cant they? How would a Constitution change this?
3. Why put the idea of not having to change money when going on holiday as a benefit, when that same communal currency forces a member Country to hold their own particular interest rates at a level set by the EU, irrespective of that Member Country's economic plight? I see the disadvantage of not being able to curb inflation, or boost the economy as far more serious than spending half an hour in a Bureau de Change.
4. A simple two page declaration of freedom for work and travel as previously mentioned would solve the working in Berlin, or studying abroad, wouldnt it? Why does this need a 400+ page Constitution?
5. Is there a section in the Constitution that covers qualifications being recognised in other Countries? I would be surprised if there was, as it would have to list every professional and educational qualification that exists in the EU at present, and give its equivalent ranking qualification for each member state's set of qualifications. If it doesnt do this, it would be ineffective.

I have still not heard an argument as to why we NEED a Constitution, as opposed to a simple free trade/movement/work agreement.
And what are your views on the Euro/Holland situation Nimh? Has the Euro had an adverse or positive effect? How is your inflation compared to pre Euro?
It's just that there was a lot on TV during your Referendum, focusing on the apparent fact that the Dutch people did not really want the Euro in the first place, and would like to return to their own currency once again.

Since 1979 we have the European Monetary System in the EU ... okay, the UK is as the only EU country not in it.

I don't see how any of this necessitates any bureaucracy. Just stop requiring work and residency permits, and leave it to universities what they recognise for what. That leaves selling ones produce for guaranteed prices and consumer protection, both of which I would rather do without. I really can't think of a "Rule from Brussels" that I benefit from.

So they'll quickly have to pass the Council Regulation (EC) No 12345/2005 of 07 June 2005, establishing a basket full of benefits for Thomas

Now we're talking!

Yes, the good old Tacheles :wink:

What I sense here is a dearth of healthy disorder and free choice. It's all too authoritarian and Platonic for my taste.

Well, I suppose, even Platonic love to others would bring some trouble at home here .... ooops, wrong topic :wink:

I'm saying they exist in all those countries - and they're all different.

Which made the "free movement of population for reasons of work and play" you were talking about, for example, hardly the 1-A4 type thing to arrange, because all those differences got (and get) in the way of facilitating it.

Basically, you hit the nail on the head. All those laws and rules already existed, "reams and reams" of it, and "harmonising" it all to create compatible regulations across borders that all those freely moving people and goods require, which is what a lot of the lengthy EU-negotiations and lawmaking is about, actually replaces or works around those old reams and reams.

One may object to unnecessary curves, detours and details thus incorporated in the new reams and reams, but the rhetorical posturing about how its all just unnecessary extra bureaucracy thats imposed for no reason at all is a bit off. In fact, many of those curves and detours that lead to 500-page documents are about individual national governments insisting on this and that specific national exception, preservation of this specificity and that particular bit of protectionism, etc. You cant have your cake (all kinds of national exceptions) and eat it (plain 2xA4 international agreements) too.

Whether it should all have been incorporated in the Constitution is a different question, but the suggestion that its all unnecessary in the first place is populist nonsense.


Not the Constitution - but again, in the post I was responding to, you had come to talk about the whole kaboozle, the whole development of the EU since that referendum in the 70s. How it was all just unnecessary reams and reams of regulations when what was all so difficult about just arranging the free movement of populations for work and play? That's what I was answering to. You try harmonising 15 or 25 different national lawbooks when it comes to the whole who-gets-a-permit-for-what-how-and-where thing.

(And though Thomas's minimalist take - just cut all of it out of all those lawbooks - is laudably ideologically consistent, it is also perfectly abstract pie-in-the-sky for an EU that does, in its actual real-life daily work, have the wishes and insecurities of 25 national governments to deal with).


But a lot of other people see things differently, and consider the advantages of the Euro to outweigh the disadvantages - and not just because of the changing money thing. Even in Holland, where 61% just rejected the constitution and where we already always had a strong, stable currency of our own, polls show that only a small minority wants the guilder back.

And my point was exactly that everybody complains about 'all that unnecessary paperwork and legislation' when it concerns stuff they disagree about, while they take for granted the stuff that happens to benefit them. Pretty much like the griping about all governments. So one person bitches about the Euro, but is happy to now be able to retire in Spain with retainment of pension and without difficult national legislative obstacles on permits, whereas someone else bitches about how "Europe" allows rich Brits to buy up Greek islands but is happy to use the Euro instead of the drachma. And its the pussyfooting around all these individual, selective wishes and preferences that makes EU legislation such cumbersome business - and as thanks for that, Brussels gets tirades about how its overly bureaucratic.

I can only say that to some extent, it is a reflection of what we ourselves, collectively, insisted should all be included. The French peasants want their agricultural subsidies, the Portuguese want their regional development structures, the Brits want a status aparte on the rebate, etc etc.


Again, probably some confusion - I didnt mean the Constitution would solve this problem, because this particular problem is already being solved by EU countries - and yes, it takes a darned lot more than a two-page declaration to clear all the legislative hurdles and dissinchronicities between individual member states' legislations.

The Euro is much blamed for a momentary price hike right after its inroduction - shopkeepers and especially cafes, restaurants etc tended to round off the new numbers to their own advantage pretty soon. On the other hand we've had a cutting supermarket price war for the last year or two, so grocery prices are down again.

There was no opposition of significance against the Euro when it was initially introduced (unlike in Germany) - the resentment builded almost entirely afterwards, because of the initial price hikes. Though people did always already regret losing our beautifully-designed old bills (euro bills are as drab as the deutsche mark was).

Inflation is unremarkable; it's been low for ages in Holland, as far as I know (if it suddenly goes up, you tend to notice).

People have a nostalgic sentiment about the guilder, but dont seriously want to go back: this is from a Maurice de Hond opinion poll about it that was out yesterday.

Would you like there to be a Referendum in The Netherlands to get the guilder back?

Yes 27%
No 69%

(Agreement reached from 6-10% among Greens and Democrats to 57-75% among the far-right supporters of Geert Wilders and the late Pim Fortuyn, the only groups among whom a majority answered "yes")

Suppose a Referendum would be held to get the euro back. Would you vote in favour (the guilder back) or against (the euro has to stay)?

In favour 30%
Against 65%

(Again, only Wilders and List Fortuyn voters in majority were in favour, with support for bringing back the guilder tapering off to 36% of Labour and Socialist voters, 21-23% of Christian-Democrats and rightwing-liberals and 6-12% of Greens and Democrats.)

Not exactly on topic, but Mr Blair is meeting now with Mr Bush in Washington. How is the trip being reported in the press in Europe in general and the UK in particular?

Prolly the same as reported in the US. No agreement on funding Africa, but will discuss what they agree on.

Bush meets Blair for Africa talks

Bush, Blair meet at White House, differ on Africa

Blair Lobbies Bush on Aid for Africa

Aid groups keep pressure on Blair

.... what c.i. said :wink:

Tony Blair has abandoned any talk about his prime-ministership of UK, presidency of EU for next 6 months, presidency of G-8 meeting next month in Scotland, his very own agenda for a Middle-Eastern summit - and -

- he's borrowed an Afrika Corps uniform from Prince Harry's closet in hopes of getting appointed to the House of Lords after his current post is over, and/or is possibly commuting with the spirit of the late Diana on the matter of global warming, which btw started after the last ice age approx. 30,000 years ago and is reasonably enough continuing without intervention on our part.

Now obviously it's not for the US to tell either the UK or generally the EU what to do, but doesn't anyone over the pond worry about Tony's volte-face, to put it very delicately?

Sure Africa has problems, and so does the planet, but whom, precisely, is Tony representing on this mission, and whatever happened to his appointed duties?!

Legacy positioning....

legacy positioning, indeed. Mr Blair stills wants to be perceived as a significant player. Perhaps he is. But his image here in the US is the infamous description of him as Bush's poodle.
As for Bush: the social security issue "reform" is dead. The Republican's are still in line, but some are starting to watch the clock on the 2006 elections.
And then there is Iraq. Johnboy is disinclined to rant and doesn't like it when other folks do it, but...Irag is going to be big, I think, in the next election cycle. The deception, or accusations of deception that got us in. The number of soldiers killed and wounded and the some 17% of returning soldiers coming back (source: NPR) with post-traumatic problems. (johnboy did the Vietnam thing and had to deal with some ghosts). I think that, in another year, the administration is going to have problems making the case that we need to be there.
So we get to Africa. Where Mr Bush and Mr Blair will agree to think about whether we should think about doing something. - rjb-

They are both trying to move the target away from Iraq to Africa. Since they can't do much about the mess they got us into in Iraq, their only option left is to move the target, and hope enough people follow their dart.

I like Blair a great deal--but I don't think he can limp on much further.

He is blamed for the recent losses by his party, and there is confident talk that he'll lose his seat to ...Gordon Brown, is it?

I would be very pleased to be wrong.

However, you should know that Blair is considerably more popular in the states than he is on Fleet Street--and in other British environs.

A UK MP's Press release. Her name is Diane Abbott.
---------
Abbott: "victory is unambiguous" but public faith in Blair is not

Commenting on today's General Election result Diane Abbott, re-elected Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, said: "We have seen a Labour government returned for a historic third term but with a significantly reduced majority. This is a great result but there are lessons to be learned".

Diane Abbott, whose vote share was down from 61% in 2001 to 48.6% today, continued: "Every Labour MP has felt the backlash over Iraq - some have even lost their seats - but London MPs in particular have been affected. People are still very angry, and rightly so. Hopefully this result will make the leadership realise that in the new Parliament it has to listen carefully to the public and be much more responsive to its demands."

"I have been very saddened to see personal friends like Barbara Roche and Oona King swept away in the backlash against Blair and the war. These were hard working constituency MPs who have paid the price for the anger of Londoners about Iraq."

Abbott, who has been an MP since 1987, went on: "Tony Blair is the first Labour leader to win three consecutive elections but his margin has decreased drastically and he has achieved the lowest share of the vote for a ruling party in modern times. The strong swing against Labour has not given Blair the mandate he would have hoped for and public faith in him may be wavering. However, our victory was unambiguous - people do not want to go back to the Tories."

Abbott concluded: "The truth I s that this has been a victory for the labour party not for Tony Blair. This has been a testing time for democracy but I for one will continue to listen to people and speak out on the issues that really matters to them. I look forward to resuming work in Parliament."