NationStates Jolt Archive

To preface this comment, I am working on my Masters degree in Political Science with an emphasis in public policy, here in the United States. Thus, by no means am I an idiot, nor completely ignorant to world politics, much less International political economy. However, I do have a question, aimed at the europeans...

Friday's Wall Street Journal commented that Tony Blair was taking over as the European Union's president Friday... How did he become the President of the EU? Is this something voted on, or do they just take turns, and if the latter, for how long??

Also, The article comments on the rest of Europe's reluctancy to embrace the U.K.'s economic model, why is this, as Britain's economy has been outperforming most other Euro nations for some time now???

Good questions... I by no means speak on behalf of europe, but the general feeling seems to be that Britain feels it is above the EU, and is "too friendly" with the United States, if you will... Hope this somehow helps...

I believe its a bi annual cycle for the presidency

As for the European Union presidency, I am not sure...

Though I am not European, I thought I heard that the EU presidency is done on a rotating basis. So that'll make sense if it is Great Britain's turn since I believe that France's Chirac is currently President.

To preface this comment, I am working on my Masters degree in Political Science with an emphasis in public policy, here in the United States. Thus, by no means am I an idiot, nor completely ignorant to world politics, much less International political economy. However, I do have a question, aimed at the europeans...

Friday's Wall Street Journal commented that Tony Blair was taking over as the European Union's president Friday... How did he become the President of the EU? Is this something voted on, or do they just take turns, and if the latter, for how long??

Also, The article comments on the rest of Europe's reluctancy to embrace the U.K.'s economic model, why is this, as Britain's economy has been outperforming most other Euro nations for some time now???
You should have had the title 'Question for the E.U. Members.
Not all European nations are in the 'European Union', have you ever heard of E.F.T.A.?
Even non E.U. nations like mine think Britain thinks it has some sort of super status in the E.U., it doesnt and will never be above other member nations.
Looking at the E.U. as it is today I would trust the Germans best, the French are a distant second.

Why trust the French?? What have the french done to help the EU? Germany is strong, and seems to have the whole EU's best interests at hand, but the French? bunch of savages...

Interesting note, in that same article you mentioned from the WS Journal, the british had the following to say:

"We have taken millions out of poverty during the last eight years....We believe that is the wish of most Europeans" -British Finance Minister Gordon Brown

Brown makes a valid point....

I believe its a bi annual cycle for the presidency
Yes. Every half year it's rotated.

Though I am not European, I thought I heard that the EU presidency is done on a rotating basis. So that'll make sense if it is Great Britain's turn since I believe that France's Chirac is currently President.
I thought it was Luxembourg's turn before GB?

Well, maybe this is what you're looking for:

http://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm

The light blue box in the center has some information on institutions (and the presidency) - hope that helps; it doesn't get any more official than that :D

@ North Island: Yes, Germany has definitely learned a lesson from its history and therefore has great interest in a unified Europe.

Personal thoughts: Although the EU does face a couple of problems (constitution anyone?) I believe that there is no alternative and all member nations should really get their act together and work as the team they supposedly are. Hopefully, Tony B. will not be completely blocked during his turn - but he should definitely realize that as president he does not only represent GB!

And please stop bashing the French! Without them, there wouldn't even be a European Union! We need them to make the EU work properly, they are very important.

Why trust the French?? What have the french done to help the EU? Germany is strong, and seems to have the whole EU's best interests at hand, but the French? bunch of savages...
Agreed...Germany is the only nation that I trust to keep the E.U. alive and strong.
I just said France so the French and Canadians wouldnt go crazy.

First off, I have to admit I'm not knowledgable in this area, but I believe the countries do indeed "take turns" at the presidency, the period being half a year.

Yes. Every half year it's rotated.


I thought it was Luxembourg's turn before GB?

Well, maybe this is what you're looking for:

http://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm

The light blue box in the center has some information on institutions (and the presidency) - hope that helps; it doesn't get any more official than that :D

@ North Island: Yes, Germany has definitely learned a lesson from its history and therefore has great interest in a unified Europe.


Thank for the link, I needed it.

Speaking of Germany (Sorry if this is off topic) why haven't they got a permanant seat on the UN security council?

There's this slight problem with GB: they're not a € country yet, and probably will never be, which leaves a few opened questions about conflicting interests...
Besides, GB view of the EU seems to be much more of economic nature rather than a political one. Blair opening speech seemed to disprove that, let's see if he backs it up somehow.

You should have had the title 'Question for the E.U. Members.
Not all European nations are in the 'European Union', have you ever heard of E.F.T.A.?
Even non E.U. nations like mine think Britain thinks it has some sort of super status in the E.U., it doesnt and will never be above other member nations.

I think you will find it is Germany and France are the ones who think they are above other nations. Britain is the second largest contributor to the EU budget and we get very little out of it, what would happen to the EU if Britain refused to pay? Who would fill the gap? We even have no control of the rebate as it is the EU who desides where it is spent.

Maybe you don't like Britain because you are still bitter over the Cod War?

I think the EU could work just fine without the French, but then again that is my personal opinion......


As far as stability in the region, Germany definitely adds that, as does the U.K. In fact, if Tony can keep politics out of it, the British model of economics seems to be extremely successful, and could stabilize the Euro.

There's this slight problem with GB: they're not a € country yet, and probably will never be, which leaves a few opened questions about conflicting interests...
Besides, GB view of the EU seems to be much more of economic nature rather than a political one. Blair opening speech seemed to disprove that, let's see if he backs it up somehow.

Less of a problem as the presidency has nothing to do with the workings of the Euro (eg Interest Rates) which is still dealt with by Brussels but I do see your point

Because the UN SC represents the world's powers and victors of 1945.

I believe that Germany indeed should belong there - after all, we do support the UN massively with funds and troops. And yes, we are very influential in Europe.

There are talks about placing new members into the UN SC - but China doesn't want Japan in there and the US want to stay at the status quo.

If the US said yes, I doubt anyone else would object Germany being a part of the UN SC.

Less of a problem as the presidency has nothing to do with the workings of the Euro (eg Interest Rates) which is still dealt with by Brussels but I do see your point
Not even. That is done by the European Central Bank which resides in Frankfurt, Germany.

Because the UN SC represents the world's powers and victors of 1945.

I believe that Germany indeed should belong there - after all, we do support the UN massively with funds and troops. And yes, we are very influential in Europe.

There are talks about placing new members into the UN SC - but China doesn't want Japan in there and the US want to stay at the status quo.

If the US said yes, I doubt anyone else would object Germany being a part of the UN SC.

As far as I know Germany is the biggest supporter that doesn't have a permanent seat, possibly the biggest supporter. Well the US want out I'd be happy to trade the countries ;)

Not even. That is done by the European Central Bank which resides in Frankfurt, Germany.

my mistake on where its based but i knew it was controlled by the ECB I assumed it was in Brussels

Less of a problem as the presidency has nothing to do with the workings of the Euro (eg Interest Rates) which is still dealt with by Brussels but I do see your point

True enough, I guess, but it's hard for politcs not to mix with economics, in the end. By the way, here on the continent there's more than a few people that say Britain should state a term to adopt the Euro as currency, or get ready to lose much of its political weight in the EU. Don't know if they're right, but at least what they're saying makes some sense to me.

Every 6 months the EU presidency goes to the leader of another member nation. So Blair will be president of the EU for 6 months because he is the leader of Britain's government, and Britain is next in line for the EU Presidency. In another 6 months, another member nation's leader will take the Presidency.

To preface this comment, I am working on my Masters degree in Political Science with an emphasis in public policy, here in the United States. Thus, by no means am I an idiot, nor completely ignorant to world politics, much less International political economy. However, I do have a question, aimed at the europeans...

Friday's Wall Street Journal commented that Tony Blair was taking over as the European Union's president Friday... How did he become the President of the EU? Is this something voted on, or do they just take turns, and if the latter, for how long??

Also, The article comments on the rest of Europe's reluctancy to embrace the U.K.'s economic model, why is this, as Britain's economy has been outperforming most other Euro nations for some time now???
they do take it in turns every 6 months i believe.

and as for why we might choose to follow a non-UK economic model: the EU is not all about economics (much to some people's dismay, mostly conservatives). the question of whether to follow the 'UK economic model' or not is a much deeper issue facing the EU following the two resounding "no" votes in the referendums over the Constitution. the issue is over which direction the EU follows: the UK/scandinavian path of more liberal (classic, non-american sense), free market economics and reductions in social and political union; or the more socialised French/German path of, importantly, deeper political union (potentially leading to a Federal Europe), greater social harmonisation, and more socialist economic policies.

thats essentially the economics debate though: to go more socialist (or stay roughly where we are), or to go more free market - which is, comparativley, the UK's approach. hence the debate is capitalism vs socialism (to a degree) at its core.

yes the UK has seen a more prosperous economy in recent years than our continental counterparts, but at what cost? a public services system that is falling apart, with the NHS drastically underfunded (especially compared to the German equivalent, i understand); total lack of investment in a mistakenly privatised national rail system; our people working the longest hours in the EU; rising social problems, in part fuelled by a desperatley underfunded state school system... the list goes on.
while continental transport links, to the best of my knowledge, are invested in and punctual; schools are relatively well funded (compared to the UK); health services are much more capable; social problems are seemingly better under control (no chavs for a start ;)).... etc..

so thats the issue. its not all about simple macroeconomic performance

while continental transport links, to the best of my knowledge, are invested in and punctual; schools are relatively well funded (compared to the UK); health services are much more capable; social problems are seemingly better under control (no chavs for a start ;)).... etc..

Ah, ah, ah. That's funny. Maybe north of the Alps. Italy's falling apart. WE'RE GOIG DOWN THe DRAIN, somebody save us please....

The Presidency of the Council is held for six months by each member state on a rotational basis. As for the reluctance of Europeans to embrace the UK’s economic model this is undoubtedly due to the predominantly Anglo-American neo-liberal economic system favouring greater labour market flexibility and privatisation of social services. This is obviously incompatible with a European social model favouring job security and extensive social welfare provision. Co-determination union legislation in Germany is a good example of the difference in perspective over the role of the worker within the corporate machine. Whereas continental union rights on the whole have remained strong, in the UK and especially the US the role of unions has diminished significantly.

Ah, ah, ah. That's funny. Maybe north of the Alps. Italy's falling apart. WE'RE GOIG DOWN THe DRAIN, somebody save us please....
mm well thats Italy... :(
you dudes need to get rid of that corrupt little man you have running the country for a start

Your question has already been answered above s i won't answer it again!

As far as Europe and Britain are concerned, I think Britain finds it hard to relate to people in Europe because are cultures are so different (we are not European, we are British!) and therefore to try and negotiate is nigh on impossible especially with people like Chirac and Schroeder who have their own political agenda's, after all, Chirac is a criminal and if he gets ousted from government he will be locked up, and schroeder has an unpcoming election that at current polls he is likely to lose to the Christian Democrats? So, schroder and chirac have a vested interest in diverting attention away from domestic topics to european ones, and guess who they pick on, the little guy (well...compared to France and Germany in land mass!), which happens to have a strong economy and generally doing better than them and then come up with some absurd thing to take our rebate away!

We already pay 3x more than France with the rebate, without we would pay 15x more than France!!!!!

I say, Britain would be better without Europe, they need us more than we need them, if we pulled out we can go out of all this political hotpot and concentrate on forging new trade links and policies with Europe and the rest of the world, hell we could even go along Geldof's lines of making Trade Justified or whatever it is.

Sweden for example is not in the European Union, but has trade links (which incidently the EU was set up as its primary aim in 1956, funny how things change...) and seems to be doing very well! If Britain did this, we could once again have trade links with world, like the Good Ol' Days! Britain would become richer and more of a world power!

Down with the EU! Its pointless and nothing ever gets agreed due to the infighting.

mm well thats Italy... :(
you dudes need to get rid of that corrupt little man you have running the country for a start

Believe me, I'd like to see that. I'm SOOOOO afraid we won't manage to get rid of him in 2006, either. That'd be creepy. Argentina crack's gonna seem like losing a monopoly game compared to what we're expecting down here.

This is the view I have been given of the EU from professors here in the States, that Italy is dragging down the EU, and that the EU is dragging down Germany.. Given this may be a little off, but that is the impression...

True enough, I guess, but it's hard for politcs not to mix with economics, in the end. By the way, here on the continent there's more than a few people that say Britain should state a term to adopt the Euro as currency, or get ready to lose much of its political weight in the EU. Don't know if they're right, but at least what they're saying makes some sense to me.

The major factor of the UK joining (economics wise) is the loss of controlm of interest rates as the UK borrows on average a lot more than the EU, a major part of this being mortgages.

This is the view I have been given of the EU from professors here in the States, that Italy is dragging down the EU, and that the EU is dragging down Germany.. Given this may be a little off, but that is the impression...

Allright, the impression from Italy is that we've had quite a few economic problems in the last twenty or so years, which have increased a thousandfold in the last five. Add to that a few years of the worst governing you can imagine, a more-than-half-corrupt Prime Minister and it's a miracle they haven't kicked us out of the EU yet. They gave us a warning to bring deficit back in line by 2008, but didn't say what would happen if we don't make it.

(blablabla...)
Sweden for example is not in the European Union, but has trade links (which incidently the EU was set up as its primary aim in 1956, funny how things change...) and seems to be doing very well! If Britain did this, we could once again have trade links with world, like the Good Ol' Days! Britain would become richer and more of a world power!

Down with the EU! Its pointless and nothing ever gets agreed due to the infighting.

Wrong! Sweden is part of the EU. Norway ain't. Man, if you wanna start ranting, at least get your "facts" straight!

Long live the EU! Instead of going to war when there's a dispute (like Europe did for the last 2000 years) people actually get together and talk!

I firmly believe you don't even know what you're talking about!

Down with the EU! Its pointless and nothing ever gets agreed due to the infighting.
better that than return to the real fighting we've experienced for the last 2,000 years :rolleyes:


Believe me, I'd like to see that. I'm SOOOOO afraid we won't manage to get rid of him in 2006, either. That'd be creepy. Argentina crack's gonna seem like losing a monopoly game compared to what we're expecting down here.
hmm parallels with the US G. W. Bush elections too... creepy indeed ;)


As far as Europe and Britain are concerned, I think Britain finds it hard to relate to people in Europe because are cultures are so different (we are not European, we are British!)
and the big difference is? :confused:

and therefore to try and negotiate is nigh on impossible especially with people like Chirac and Schroeder who have their own political agenda's, after all, Chirac is a criminal and if he gets ousted from government he will be locked up, and schroeder has an unpcoming election that at current polls he is likely to lose to the Christian Democrats? So, schroder and chirac have a vested interest in diverting attention away from domestic topics to european ones, and guess who they pick on, the little guy (well...compared to France and Germany in land mass!), which happens to have a strong economy and generally doing better than them and then come up with some absurd thing to take our rebate away!

We already pay 3x more than France with the rebate, without we would pay 15x more than France!!!!!

so Britian adopting a anti-EU stance as you suggest would make our internal negotiations easier how? you say that we should leave because "negotiations are impossible" but in adopting this stance surely we just make this problem worse?

and don't forget that politicians and national leaders change. just because there are difficulties with a certain few individuals now doesn't mean the EU is either doomed, a waste of time or a failed project. in 5 years intra-EU relations could be at an all time high.
and what if they're not? well we won't find out or be able to take advantage of this if we leave now will we?


and as for the rebate: i agree its unfair.
how about this to make things actually more fair: we loose our rebate but France pays more? just a thought



I say, Britain would be better without Europe, they need us more than we need them, if we pulled out we can go out of all this political hotpot and concentrate on forging new trade links and policies with Europe and the rest of the world, hell we could even go along Geldof's lines of making Trade Justified or whatever it is.

Sweden for example is not in the European Union, but has trade links (which incidently the EU was set up as its primary aim in 1956, funny how things change...) and seems to be doing very well! If Britain did this, we could once again have trade links with world, like the Good Ol' Days! Britain would become richer and more of a world power!

and if EU members work together we can all become richer and "more of a world power"
what makes Britain so damn important anyway?
what of the social and political links, treaties and policies that the EU brings? the EU is more than a simple economic union. and do you think that if we were to leave the EU we would be granted access to the free trade area with no import/export tariffs? i think not.


the EU has a number of problems at the moment - beaurocracy, inefficiency, infighting - but these are problems that can be overcome by working together at them, not simply giving up. doing that would give us no chance of solving these problems and no chance for all Europeans to advance together.

As far as Europe and Britain are concerned, I think Britain finds it hard to relate to people in Europe because are cultures are so different (we are not European, we are British!) and therefore to try and negotiate is nigh on impossible

It is exactly attitudes like that which make Britain the laughing stock of Europe. I’m Scottish and European – I would say British but frankly I resent any association with so much of the nationalistic vitriol that comes from south of the border.

My Grandfather served in the RAF until retirement and he did not serve in World War 2 to see greater European divisions generated over ridiculous concepts such as the English losing their national identity. The EU is an historic opportunity to make Europe a prosperous and peaceful region and has on the whole been a success. Britain has crumbling infrastructure and a sickening disparity between the richest and poorest – 1% of the population owns 23% of the wealth. Now I do not particularly agree with the notion of that being a success story the UK should be proud of.

Also Sweden is part of the EU it is however not a part of the Euro zone.

Thanks Pure Metal - good post indeed!

Thanks Pure Metal - good post indeed!
my pleasure, and thanks :D
but now i'm off to bed. keep up the good fight!

bump

Really, there is no alternative to a political union. China is going big, so is India, and there'll be the States probably for another 20 years or so.
Neither Britain nor France have enough people to stay on top on their own, and neither does Germany. Apart from that, Germany cannot continue to exist as it does now indefinitely - forever torn at by its' past, forever pained by internal issues, forever the Federal Republic doubted for its' ability to keep Germany from starting wars again (not that I think it could happen).
Our place is as a part of a greater whole.
If Britain is intent of turning the EU back into an FTA, then Germany and (probably) France will start it themselves, as they did all those years ago, and join independently from what the EU thinks.

Sorry I sound a little bit strange, but I watched "Downfall" yesterday night - a very moving picture for me.

and as for why we might choose to follow a non-UK economic model: the EU is not all about economics (much to some people's dismay, mostly conservatives). the question of whether to follow the 'UK economic model' or not is a much deeper issue facing the EU following the two resounding "no" votes in the referendums over the Constitution. the issue is over which direction the EU follows: the UK/scandinavian path of more liberal (classic, non-american sense), free market economics and reductions in social and political union; or the more socialised French/German path of, importantly, deeper political union (potentially leading to a Federal Europe), greater social harmonisation, and more socialist economic policies.

Right now we don't have much choice in what sort of economic model we wish to persue. The only reason England can do what they please is because they're totally outside the economic pact. The other EU countries (as far as I know at least) all have their economies tied to the euro - whether they use the currency or not.
There's some economic agreements we have to abide by. Complicated shit, so look it up for yourself. But the consequence is we run our economies very similar.

Also.. The UK is the almost the only country interested in increasing social inequality. Part of the EU idea for the last 15 years or so, have been to highten the general income and eliminate the gap between rich & poor. The constitution we just blew away had some very concrete suggestions on how to further this (they were deeply flawed, but that's another discussion).

As far as Europe and Britain are concerned, I think Britain finds it hard to relate to people in Europe because are cultures are so different (we are not European, we are British!) and therefore to try and negotiate is nigh on impossible especially with people like Chirac and Schroeder who have their own political agenda's, after all, Chirac is a criminal and if he gets ousted from government he will be locked up, and schroeder has an unpcoming election that at current polls he is likely to lose to the Christian Democrats? So, schroder and chirac have a vested interest in diverting attention away from domestic topics to european ones, and guess who they pick on, the little guy (well...compared to France and Germany in land mass!), which happens to have a strong economy and generally doing better than them and then come up with some absurd thing to take our rebate away!

We already pay 3x more than France with the rebate, without we would pay 15x more than France!!!!!

I say, Britain would be better without Europe, they need us more than we need them, if we pulled out we can go out of all this political hotpot and concentrate on forging new trade links and policies with Europe and the rest of the world, hell we could even go along Geldof's lines of making Trade Justified or whatever it is.

Sweden for example is not in the European Union, but has trade links (which incidently the EU was set up as its primary aim in 1956, funny how things change...) and seems to be doing very well! If Britain did this, we could once again have trade links with world, like the Good Ol' Days! Britain would become richer and more of a world power!

Down with the EU! Its pointless and nothing ever gets agreed due to the infighting.

The northern european cultures are so similar people wouldn't be able to tell the countries apart if we didn't speak different languages. Right now there's a general right movement in all of the countries. UK isn't the only one. Increasingly people blame the EU, immigrants and socialists for all the ills of the world. When they get fired because of privatisation, can't get help because public service has been privatised, can't affort the bills because sanitation have been privatised, can't flush their toilets because of it, can't marry who they want because of a xenophobic government, can't complain over government abuse because the government have abolished the things you used to complain to..... Argh... Well you get the picture methinks.

The UK needs either the EU or the US. You're a tiney country in a huge ass world. A world comprised of globe spanning mega corporations, supported by nations who generate more money in a month than you do in 5-10 years. If you become an independent competitor on the worldmarket, your corporations will either bite the dust or relocate. Either way, the UK loose. This is THE reason the EEC was invented. We couldn't compete with the other nations, because individually we were just too damn small. This is still the main purpose of EU.
If you're just a little bit realistic about it, your choices are: Become a major player in EU, or be annexed by the US.

Sweeden was half-way outside EU. According to their own experts, it's the dumbest thing they've ever done. They had a lot of benefits other countries don't have, but it was still punishing their export & import immensely. Even though their 3 closest markets had another trade arrangement with them. The UK would be in an even worse position.

The EU makes mindblowingly many decisions each day, affecting nearly all aspects of the member nations laws. Anything from trade, subsidising, tax barriers, how foodstuffs are made, what can be in it, traffic regulation, enviromnent policy.... All sorts of shit. They even decide what weed killer you can use in your own garden.

This is the view I have been given of the EU from professors here in the States, that Italy is dragging down the EU, and that the EU is dragging down Germany.. Given this may be a little off, but that is the impression...

Germany have - more than anyone else - invested in the EU. They have also merged with the old DDR. Mostly it's the latter that killed their economy. While places such as the UK get heavy financial support for a minor (comparatively and only financially speaking) problem like Northern Ireland, EU didn't give anything to germany. But who can blame us? They only proved the single most stabilising nation in europe, resolving a gigantic conflict that cost all of us a ton of money each year... And they took over a hopelessly broke stoneage nation with nothing but unemployment and uneducated citizens... Ok it wasn't that bad, but...

Still, there's a lot of truth in what your professors say. That's also why people didn't go ballistic when Germany wanted to prolong the deadline for their economic goals (which are lain down by all the EU countries). The bad news is France fucked up their own economy for no real reason. They hitched a ride on Germany's problems and got an extension as well.

Anyway, don't get me wrong. I'm not for the EU. The EU simply can't work in my opinion. It's designed to exploit both itself and outside nations. It would take a hell of a lot more than the proposed constitution to change that.
But currently it should fit the UK's NeoLib politics pretty good. In most respects anyway

thats definitely worth a bump

To preface this comment, I am working on my Masters degree in Political Science with an emphasis in public policy, here in the United States. Thus, by no means am I an idiot, nor completely ignorant to world politics, much less International political economy. However, I do have a question, aimed at the europeans...

Friday's Wall Street Journal commented that Tony Blair was taking over as the European Union's president Friday... How did he become the President of the EU? Is this something voted on, or do they just take turns, and if the latter, for how long??

Also, The article comments on the rest of Europe's reluctancy to embrace the U.K.'s economic model, why is this, as Britain's economy has been outperforming most other Euro nations for some time now???

The EU currently has a rotating presidency that each member nation holds for 6 months, before was Luxembourg from the beginning of the year to end of June, before them the Netherlands, before them Ireland, etc.

As for dislike of the Britain's economic model, it is partly as that the UK is not trusted. France refused to let the UK in the EU originally because they were/are seen as the Trojan House for the Americans. Most Europeans believe if it came down to it, that the UK would choose the US over Europe and not give it a second thought. The UK is not seen to be fully trusted by the 'core' members because they pulled out of joining the euro even they insisted on some rules that others thought too constrictive, and they refuse to take part in other EU projects for deeper integration such as the passport free zone.

As well, many Europeans believe that there should be social protections and that the UK model does not have enough of these. They see the UK too keen to please businesses and the US over the interests of their citizens. The British health care system is seen as a mess, those that truly unemployed are not cared for, public transport is a mess, workers don't have full rights when it comes to striking, etc. They see the privatisations of things like electricity and water as dangerous, which I can understand because I don't see how that the French massive nuclear power system could be in a system in a privatised system. Currently, France produces an excess of electricity and the UK demands more than produces so the south of England is dependent on France for electricity (and the English claim they don't need France!). This problem will probably only get worse as the UK shuts down its few nuclear centres in the next few years and doesn't have much inline to replace these.

The UK, if it was in the euro zone, would be in breach of the stability pact; the countries in the euro zone have very little room for flexibility. In my opinion, the ECB was a more flexible with currency flows, and the stability pact was not so restrictive, the euro zone would be performing better.

From what I understand , if the UK counted their unemployment rates as France does, they would have a higher rate than they do. For example, France does not count those with seasonal jobs as employed, and the UK does not count people as unemployed if they are a student and can't get a job because the only that the jobs that they are offered conflict with the class schedule (I have known several people in this situation). Many in Europe also fear underemployment (McJobs) that they see in the US, which is the direction that they feel that UK is heading.

It is not as simple as lower employment figures for the better economy, I believe that UK and French projected economic growth is the same with the economic slowdown in the beginning of the year in the UK. That are other measures should be used when looking at an economy, as well such as how that you see that the state should or should not take care of the needs of the people.

...Also, The article comments on the rest of Europe's reluctancy to embrace the U.K.'s economic model, why is this, as Britain's economy has been outperforming most other Euro nations for some time now???
Outperforming, yes, but arguably not in all areas. The idea of social welfare and an egalitarian society is enormously important for French and German people (and I presume many other nations as well).
The UK model is essentially a system that streamlines employment processes. You get hired faster, and you get fired faster. And once you are fired, you either find a job (at any wage) or starve (yes, yes i know...).
Obviously that greatly lowers the risk if a firm wants to upgrade its' capital. One can easily get rid of labour no longer required. That improves performance of the economy in the short and medium term.
In reality however, it doesn't stop firms from moving to places where it is even easier to hire and fire, eg China. So the UK effectively competes with China on the basis of labour flexibility, which as China modernises and educates its' labour force, is suicidal at best.
Additionally, the process that Globalisation started also makes governing by elected officials almost impossible. The only decision that can be taken are business favourable, everything else results in companies leaving and unemployment - killing the Government in the next election. One ends upo more or less ruled by Business Interests rather than the elected politicians.
But that happens no matter what economic system you have, social or market..., and so far I haven't come up with an answer yet.
Calling Investors "Locusts" is probably not a way to do it though, ey Mr Müntefering...?

As an American, no matter how silly or stupid it may sound, I think a lot of the socialists in Europe are out to make a super-nation spanning the continent and screw us. I've read how the EU operates and it seems to me that they bully their members who dissent into agreeing or be forever f'ed.

Didn't the new Prime Minister of Spain say something about this? (the super-nation opposed to the US)

As an American, no matter how silly or stupid it may sound, I think a lot of the socialists in Europe are out to make a super-nation spanning the continent and screw us....
You're right, it does sound silly and stupid.

Friday's Wall Street Journal commented that Tony Blair was taking over as the European Union's president Friday... How did he become the President of the EU? Is this something voted on, or do they just take turns, and if the latter, for how long??


They take turns, and it is not Tony Blair himself but the British representives in the EU. The terms each last 6 months, we just took it from Luxemboerg

Really, there is no alternative to a political union. China is going big, so is India, and there'll be the States probably for another 20 years or so.
Neither Britain nor France have enough people to stay on top on their own, and neither does Germany. Apart from that, Germany cannot continue to exist as it does now indefinitely - forever torn at by its' past, forever pained by internal issues, forever the Federal Republic doubted for its' ability to keep Germany from starting wars again (not that I think it could happen).
Our place is as a part of a greater whole.
If Britain is intent of turning the EU back into an FTA, then Germany and (probably) France will start it themselves, as they did all those years ago, and join independently from what the EU thinks.

Sorry I sound a little bit strange, but I watched "Downfall" yesterday night - a very moving picture for me.
indeed. this notion of regaining British national pride or total sovereignity is nonsense in the modern political climate. fine, if we want to regain (apparent) total sovereignity and control again, thats fine, but we must be prepared to pay the price. Britian is no longer a major world power as it once was, and certainly cannot now, or in the future, hold its own against the economic might of the US or the emergining powers of China and India. trying to compete on our own, being, for a start, less productive per capita than either Germany or France (commonly thought of as a unproductive economy) is a quick road to economic ruin.

and for what? ridiculous and irrational notions of national pride, sovereignity and petty squabbles of arbitary borders? sovereignity is a different animal these days anyway, with far greater interdependence of economies and nations being held far more to account for their internal and external actions (through wholly necessary bodies such as the UN and WTO for eg)





1% of the population owns 23% of the wealth.
indeed, and 5% of the UK population own 95% of the wealth. 43% of yearly income is taken by the richest 20% of the population.

the GINI index of Britain is the highest in Europe at 3.7.
in France its 3.3
in Germany its 3.0
in Italy its 2.7
in Norway its 2.6
in Sweden its 2.5

(in the US its 4.1)

Income Distribution
The Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income (or in some cases consumption expenditure) among individuals or households within
an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Gini index score of zero implies perfect equality while a score of one implies perfect
inequality.
View full technical notes on-line at http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/variablenotes_static.cfm?varid=353&themeid=5

source (http://earthtrends.wri.org/country_profiles/index.cfm?theme=5)
Development Data Group, The World Bank. 2002


btw, good post :)


Right now we don't have much choice in what sort of economic model we wish to persue. The only reason England can do what they please is because they're totally outside the economic pact. The other EU countries (as far as I know at least) all have their economies tied to the euro - whether they use the currency or not.

There's some economic agreements we have to abide by

totally outside the EMU, yes, but not outside the economic pact of the EEC. Britian still must abide within economic limits set by the EU to retian membership.
but, yes, Britain can pursue its own economic policies as it is not in the Euro zone. however countires in the EMU are not wholly without economic freedom - they can set their own taxes and fiscal policies, i believe. its only the monetary policy that is being directed by the European Central Bank.

just thought i'd clarify :)


the consequence is we run our economies very similar.
indeed we do; although Britian will have to restructure its tax systems to be compatible with the Euro, i think

It is exactly attitudes like that which make Britain the laughing stock of Europe. I’m Scottish and European – I would say British but frankly I resent any association with so much of the nationalistic vitriol that comes from south of the border.


Ahem...excuse me? English are all really patriotic yet Scottish are all true citizens of the world who care not for their homeland but for the planet as a whole?

Please - Scotland is probably the most embarressingly nationalistic country in the British Isles. Stuff like making a hero out of a barbarian raiding rapist like William Wallace just because he is Scottish, and cheering against any team which plays against England at any sport just because they are so Anti English. Scotland is a very nationalistic and racist country, especially against English. Although, to be fair they are more closely associated with Europe. After all, they were the willing servants of France for the better part of the middle ages.

Good questions... I by no means speak on behalf of europe, but the general feeling seems to be that Britain feels it is above the EU, and is "too friendly" with the United States, if you will... Hope this somehow helps...

Please don't tar British people by the same brush as our succession of Wankers and slags for leaders, not all of us voted for them.

I for one ( and I can assure you I am not alone as a British person who says and thinks and knows this) detest how Britain through it's successive leaders is proverbially giving the successive US administrations a "while you're down there" oral massage of the US all the time.

As for the EU, I only ask that you, my European brothers and sisters, be patient with the UK.

Yes, there is alot of xenophobic selfish twats who are British who hate the EU, but they are misinformed, and are like Mushrooms. Kept in the dark, and fed on shit.

I love the premise of the EU, I prefer a social model with welfare rather than cut throat capitalism as Blair proposes.

I do want the EU to be more away from constant Franco-German administration domination though, as it seems to be. Also the constant meetings between Chirac and Schroeder, excluding others is off-putting, and many say that France and Germany appear to think they are above the EU, as opposed to Britain.

I would like to see other nations in the EU have a role, just as long as the silly nationalist strutting that Blair and Chirac are commiting just to appease Euroskeptics in their countries ends. It's dangerous, and it's childish.

I'm glad Luxembourg had a presidency of the EU, I think the best presidency so far was Ireland.

I only hope Blair does not use the UK's presidency term of the EU to make the EU suck up to Bush.


Cheers.

Please - Scotland is probably the most embarressingly nationalistic country in the British Isles. Stuff like making a hero out of a barbarian raiding rapist like William Wallace just because he is Scottish, and cheering against any team which plays against England at any sport just because they are so Anti English. Scotland is a very nationalistic and racist country, especially against English. Although, to be fair they are more closely associated with Europe. After all, they were the willing servants of France for the better part of the middle ages.

And that would explain why the BNP and UKIP are non-entities north of the border? Funny is it not that Scottish politics is dominated by centre to moderate left-wing groups running on internationalist policies? Does it not strike you as strange that even the SNP wants an independent Scotland within a strong EU? The Scots in general do not hold too many xenophobic opinions of the English but remember that in the last 25 years the Scottish economy has been a disaster thanks to economic policies established in the 80s designed to promote a service based economy. This primarily benefited Southern England. Not to mention the disastrous Poll tax debacle!

As for William Wallace – perhaps if King Edward had not set his mind to annexing Scotland, William Wallace would not be the national icon that he is. So thank you England for providing us with another globally recognised tourist attraction.

Et aussi j’adore france parce que le language c’est fantastique!

Also, The article comments on the rest of Europe's reluctancy to embrace the U.K.'s economic model, why is this, as Britain's economy has been outperforming most other Euro nations for some time now???

Lol, well I would say that that is down to xenophobia on the part of France because a lot of the EU wants to adopt the British economic model but France is resisting greatly this 'anglo-saxon' takeover.

As an American, no matter how silly or stupid it may sound, I think a lot of the socialists in Europe are out to make a super-nation spanning the continent and screw us. I've read how the EU operates and it seems to me that they bully their members who dissent into agreeing or be forever f'ed.

Didn't the new Prime Minister of Spain say something about this? (the super-nation opposed to the US)
A lot of the socialists in europe...? If anything, that opinion would come from the rightwing.
Anyway, it's opinions like yours that makes it tempting to try it.

The US National Security Policy from back in - I think it was - '47 is all about building up the european infrastructure and taking over the countries economies. Annexing europe without the use of force. That still stands to this day. If anyone has reason to be paranoid, it's us. You're the ones annexing soverign nations using any and all means (bombing, instigating civil ways, wholesale killing and removing of democratic governments, econmical sanctions, etc.).
The only reason europe isn't scared of the US is because our economies keeps yours running. Your nation can't function without us.

The only reason europe isn't scared of the US is because our economies keeps yours running. Your nation can't function without us.
and ours couldn't function without theirs. isn't cooperative competition great ;)

Strictly speaking, noone's economies could function without the US. That's why places like EU & China are willing to pay 6% (roughly) of the US national product each year and invest enormous sums in bonds & shit.

When I realized how we're all throwing money at the US (several years ago), I was dumbstruck. Superficially it makes no sense for competitors to go out of their way to strenghten the US economy, especially when the US are about as economically savy as a retarded fruit fly... Then I realized the implications of having the world economy based on the US$.

Edit: Btw, thanks for clarifying my previous post. My explanation was very confusing now that I've reread it :)

The Scandanavian system is better then the UK system.

And that would explain why the BNP and UKIP are non-entities north of the border? Funny is it not that Scottish politics is dominated by centre to moderate left-wing groups running on internationalist policies? Does it not strike you as strange that even the SNP wants an independent Scotland within a strong EU? The Scots in general do not hold too many xenophobic opinions of the English but remember that in the last 25 years the Scottish economy has been a disaster thanks to economic policies established in the 80s designed to promote a service based economy. This primarily benefited Southern England. Not to mention the disastrous Poll tax debacle!

As for William Wallace – perhaps if King Edward had not set his mind to annexing Scotland, William Wallace would not be the national icon that he is. So thank you England for providing us with another globally recognised tourist attraction.

Et aussi j’adore france parce que le language c’est fantastique!

The fact remains that the Scots are often rude and surly to English people in the extreme and seem, like you, so have some sort of hatred of us. Do I care especially, no. If Scotland wnats to go off on its own and be free of central government then it should pay for itself, instead to relying of English taxpayers to pick up the bill for the generous spendng spree of the Scottish Parliament. That would mean, *shock horror* paying for your own sodding university places. You do a lot better out of the system than people like me in the North of England do.
And as for William Wallace, he was a murderous savage who murdered innocent people during his attakcs on northern cities and drowned nuns in rivers. He got what he deserved, although many still cling to the "Braveheart" image of him as some sort of hero.

The Scandanavian system is better then the UK system.
Depends on who you are. If you're working class, the UK is a nightmare. If you're a well-off weapons manufacturer or a politician, the Scandinavian systems will suck.

You could say egomaniacs thrive in the UK and people with respect for their peers thrive in Scandinavia

The fact is at it has been said before that Tony Blair doesn't become the EU presedent, but the UK assumes de Presidency of The EU council, and The European Council (EU council of Heads of State and Governement). The EU's structre is really extrange for the observer and it´s mainly based on 4 institutions, The Council, The Comission, The Parlamient and The Court of Justice. The Council is based on a six month rotation presidency, and meets the national governemets, in its different areas of knowledge. The Fact is that Tony Blair would only be the presidento Of the European Council (taht meets for times in the year) and for example Gordon Brown will be the president of the ECOFIN (Economy and Finances) Council or Jack Straw will head the General Affairs Council. The role of the presidency is to establish the agenda of the Council through out the six months, and to act as the maximum EU authority in Foreign Affairs (Assisted by the High Representative in Common Foreign & Security Policy).

The fact remains that the Scots are often rude and surly to English people in the extreme and seem, like you, so have some sort of hatred of us. Do I care especially, no. If Scotland wnats to go off on its own and be free of central government then it should pay for itself, instead to relying of English taxpayers to pick up the bill for the generous spendng spree of the Scottish Parliament. That would mean, *shock horror* paying for your own sodding university places. You do a lot better out of the system than people like me in the North of England do.
And as for William Wallace, he was a murderous savage who murdered innocent people during his attakcs on northern cities and drowned nuns in rivers. He got what he deserved, although many still cling to the "Braveheart" image of him as some sort of hero.

Well honey if you are so concerned about university costs you could always immigrate to Scotland – after you have been resident for 3 years you would not have to pay tuition fees either.

As for hating the English that would explain why hordes of Scottish youths are strapping themselves with explosives crossing the border and blowing up civilians – you have no comprehension of what hate is. The Scottish may occasionally resent the fact that in recent decades economic policy from Westminster has been targeted towards benefiting England but that is hardly hateful or xenophobic. As a northerner you should appreciate the difficulties that traditional industrial and agricultural regions have faced in the trend towards a service based economy. Also part of the reason Scotland receives more from central government per capita than our neighbours south of the border is because of infrastructure costs. Scotland is half the size of England yet has only 10% of the population – now when you consider we export energy to you, are subjected to providing a base for the ridiculous Trident nuclear deterrent, and are the source of the majority of Britain’s oil and gas production; it would be unfair that Scots should pay for infrastructure that primarily benefits English energy and military requirements.

May I remind you that I did not raise the subject of William Wallace and my reference to him was in response to another neighbour from the south stating that he was a rapist. May I point out to you that King Edward, the infamous English adversary of Wallace was a Muslim hating, Welsh conquering, egotist who could not stand the notion of Scotland not bowing down to his authority. If you really want to take the moral high-ground you can start by returning Berwick.

I think you will find it is Germany and France are the ones who think they are above other nations. Britain is the second largest contributor to the EU budget and we get very little out of it, what would happen to the EU if Britain refused to pay? Who would fill the gap? We even have no control of the rebate as it is the EU who desides where it is spent.

Maybe you don't like Britain because you are still bitter over the Cod War?
Bitter over the 'Cod War'?? :D
Here is some news for you 'slick'...it's the 'Cod Wars' not the 'Cod War', there were three 'Cod Wars' in total and Iceland won all three. How do you like them apples?
I have nothing against BRITAIN other then that stupid English attitude.

Also, The article comments on the rest of Europe's reluctancy to embrace the U.K.'s economic model, why is this, as Britain's economy has been outperforming most other Euro nations for some time now???

This is part of a larger problem -- the generational hatred that many countries have of each other, France and Britain in particular. This is incidentally the same problem which will ultimately collapse the EU. It's just too soon for most people. The fact that Britain isn't as socialist as a lot of other European countries, and their close relationship with the US, only makes things worse.

This is part of a larger problem -- the generational hatred that many countries have of each other, France and Britain in particular. This is incidentally the same problem which will ultimately collapse the EU. It's just too soon for most people.....
I don't even think it has anything to do with hatred. Certainly where I am from I never saw any hatred, not against the Brits or the French. (although very occasionally against the Russians that immigrated all the time... :( )
I think the reasons really are purely economic.
I had a longer post somewhere on the last few pages about that.

No hatred? I challenge you to find a single average Brit who has a single good thing to say about the French. A common joke is 'France would be a nice place to visit if it weren't for the French'. And I've had the same sort of insults from the French towards myself, as well as other those from other nationalities. Germans? They get it worst of all! Few people even know why they hate these foreigners, they just do it because that's what's expected of them. And they keep all this in mind when voting on subjects such as the EU. Just because YOU don't share their irrational hatred, it doesn't mean it's not there.

No hatred? I challenge you to find a single average Brit who has a single good thing to say about the French.

The French are great, good food, nice country, lovely language, and they invest something like 1% of GDP in Arts and Culture. So frankly anyone who makes xenophobic generalisations about the French are ignorant nits d'accord?

By the way I'm British so :p

No hatred? I challenge you to find a single average Brit who has a single good thing to say about the French....
Then Germans really must be very different from French or British people. I have NEVER heard anything bad being said about Britain or France (which was meant to be serious - everybody jokes about British cooking). And I certainly cannot imagine why anyone would vote one way or the other depending on the stereotypes one might have.
At least not in Germany - maybe we're just the most progressive nation on this planet... :p

The French are great, good food, nice country, lovely language, and they invest something like 1% of GDP in Arts and Culture. So frankly anyone who makes xenophobic generalisations about the French are ignorant nits d'accord?

By the way I'm British so :p

I second that, and I'm British as well.

Then Germans really must be very different from French or British people. I have NEVER heard anything bad being said about Britain or France (which was meant to be serious - everybody jokes about British cooking). And I certainly cannot imagine why anyone would vote one way or the other depending on the stereotypes one might have.
At least not in Germany - maybe we're just the most progressive nation on this planet... :p


Well, in fairness, there are some minorities who would hold such prejudices. But they are just that, minorities.
The overall attitude toward neighbouring counrties in Germany tends to be more than just positive.

Then Germans really must be very different from French or British people. I have NEVER heard anything bad being said about Britain or France (which was meant to be serious - everybody jokes about British cooking). And I certainly cannot imagine why anyone would vote one way or the other depending on the stereotypes one might have.
At least not in Germany - maybe we're just the most progressive nation on this planet... :p
Nah, were not all that progressive... Whenever anybody says something anti foreigner, they're labeled "Nazi" and ostracized.

Bitter over the 'Cod War'?? :D
Here is some news for you 'slick'...it's the 'Cod Wars' not the 'Cod War', there were three 'Cod Wars' in total and Iceland won all three. How do you like them apples?

Because Britain sure couldn't flatten Iceland in under an hour.
You sure you're not just bitter because your country is a "nobody" of the world?

Bitter over the 'Cod War'?? :D
Here is some news for you 'slick'...it's the 'Cod Wars' not the 'Cod War', there were three 'Cod Wars' in total and Iceland won all three. How do you like them apples?
I have nothing against BRITAIN other then that stupid English attitude.

Granted Iceland had every right to claim its limits...but seriously...

the words chip, shoulder and large come to mind.

And stop with the 'English Attitude' crap. You'll find that the attitude varies as much as in any other country in the world.

Nah, were not all that progressive... Whenever anybody says something anti foreigner, they're labeled "Nazi" and ostracized.

I don't know...the amount of jokes I hear at the expense of "Ausländer" in the office where I work is enough to make me think that you're right about lack of progressiveness...

Thank for the link, I needed it.

Speaking of Germany (Sorry if this is off topic) why haven't they got a permanant seat on the UN security council?

After WWII, only the victors (France, GB, URSS, USA, China) were given a permanent seat at the security council

Nah, were not all that progressive... Whenever anybody says something anti foreigner, they're labeled "Nazi" and ostracized.
Well, yes. Call it an immune reaction. Like White Blood Cells, keepers of morality and niceness crush all dissenting thought. And good on them.
And I mean primarily feelings toward our EU partners (especially France and UK). Agreed, Polish people are not the most popular with some, nor are Russians or often Turks. But even that is not as pervasive as one might think.

After WWII, only the victors (France, GB, URSS, USA, China) were given a permanent seat at the security council

Well isn't it time that should change, Germany's one of the largest contributors with a strong economy, it would develop the UNSC well in my opinion

Well isn't it time that should change, Germany's one of the largest contributors with a strong economy, it would develop the UNSC well in my opinion

As far as I know, there are plans to make Germany into a permanent member. I don't know too much about the details, though.
I for one would appreciate it, as German foreign policy and politics overall tend to be very rational and cool-headed.

I don't know too much about the details, though.
I for one would appreciate it, as German foreign policy and politics overall tend to be very rational and cool-headed.
The plans for reform include a whole set of countries, namely Germany, Japan, India (?) and Brazil. There was meant to be an African nation as well, but that never really got off the ground.
So those countries are going around asking others to support their bids now. The plan, as I understand it, is to make it bigger...but not give the new permanent members veto-powers. That is the only way to get the fat cats to agree.

The plans for reform include a whole set of countries, namely Germany, Japan, India (?) and Brazil. There was meant to be an African nation as well, but that never really got off the ground.
So those countries are going around asking others to support their bids now. The plan, as I understand it, is to make it bigger...but not give the new permanent members veto-powers. That is the only way to get the fat cats to agree.

OK ,I heard this :
After the plan of the German Goverment :
The African Union get 2 seats .(There are a lot of people there to represent ..)Wich will be either:Nigeria, Egypt, Kenia, Libyen or Senegal.

Further: Brazil ,India ,Japan and Germany become a seat .
But the new members don`t have permanent veto-powers.

Und für alle die Deutsch beherrschen hier noch ein paar interessante Details:
hier (http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID4491484,00.html)

I believe a working E. union is a dream and we (the germans) just don`t know when we should wake up .The French people are against the Constitution ,the British goverment wants to keep the poor people poor .It just isn`t working but nobody in Germany wants to admit that so we are talking about the French just needing a bit more time ...
Don`t understand me wrong I personnaly like the idea ! As a german student I´m learning English,French and Spanish .But it just isn`t realistic..

Please - Scotland is probably the most embarressingly nationalistic country in the British Isles. Stuff like making a hero out of a barbarian raiding rapist like William Wallace just because he is Scottish, and cheering against any team which plays against England at any sport just because they are so Anti English. Scotland is a very nationalistic and racist country, especially against English. Although, to be fair they are more closely associated with Europe. After all, they were the willing servants of France for the better part of the middle ages.
Ahh yes, good 2 see another peice of fair and balanced writting on this forum. No generlisations, prejudices or ignorance shown here. Oh no. And definetly no raking over the past either. Eejit, if ur going 2 back up argument that England is not extrmely nationlistic, dont start attacking the Scottish.

-snip-
Danke. Sehr hilfreich.
(Nur ein kleiner tip: become heißt "werden", get heißt "bekommen"...)
But I disagree on your views on the EU. The constitution means nothing. The only threat to the EU is the British view of it. Otherwise I don't see anyone else actively questioning the slow path towards political unity.

Ahh yes, good 2 see another peice of fair and balanced writting on this forum. No generlisations, prejudices or ignorance shown here. Oh no. And definetly no raking over the past either. Eejit, if ur going 2 back up argument that England is not extrmely nationlistic, dont start attacking the Scottish.

Is what he said not true?

The problem is everyone's got different ways of doing things - I lived in England and I can say is the economy is as strong as it is because they are constantly diverting money from hospitals and schools, and raising tax rates on everything else... Italy is the opposite, hospitals and schools seem to be doing OK, and berlusconi is constantly cutting taxes wherever he can in order to get himself elected again and yet again. Other 'middle ground' countries like Holland, Belgium et cetera mix well in an EU environment, but as specially with the common currency, this works well with 'like' countries otherwise of course the damn thing is going to be imbalanced.
I won't mention the Germans - but I for one would not give them a third chance at European domination, and especially not a seat on the security council - can't we persuade the Americans to emigrate to Pluto and take the Germans with them so they can warplay out of everyone's way and let the rest of the world chill out a bit...

...I won't mention the Germans - but I for one would not give them a third chance at European domination, and especially not a seat on the security council - can't we persuade the Americans to emigrate to Pluto and take the Germans with them so they can warplay out of everyone's way and let the rest of the world chill out a bit...
And yet you did mention them.
Care to explain?

Well, yes. Call it an immune reaction. Like White Blood Cells, keepers of morality and niceness crush all dissenting thought. And good on them.
And I mean primarily feelings toward our EU partners (especially France and UK). Agreed, Polish people are not the most popular with some, nor are Russians or often Turks. But even that is not as pervasive as one might think.
Well, it has created a slight problem, I feel. It's almost become a fad to label someone a nazi and shove him in the "braune Ecke." Möllemann fell from grace really quickly, though I think tactlessness is more to blame than racism. But there's hardly a proper discussion about it.
And to the jokes, do you joke about poles, russians, or turks to anyone? I wouldn't tell "racist" jokes to anyone I didn't have some kind of "buddy" relationship to.
I s'pose soccer is the only time Germans as a people will get in our neighbors' hair, but the Dutch and English are worse to us than we are to them...

...And to the jokes, do you joke about poles, russians, or turks to anyone? I wouldn't tell "racist" jokes to anyone I didn't have some kind of "buddy" relationship to...
Generally I don't, but it happens occasionally. I don't think that points to any real underlying racism though.
Actually, I was shoved into the brown corner in Grade 7...I dared to question Anne Frank's behaviour toward her fellow hiding Jews in an essay.
Got myself a C, and was known henceforth as a bit of a questionable little boy.

Generally I don't, but it happens occasionally. I don't think that points to any real underlying racism though.
Actually, I was shoved into the brown corner in Grade 7...I dared to question Anne Frank's behaviour toward her fellow hiding Jews in an essay.
Got myself a C, and was known henceforth as a bit of a questionable little boy.
I lost any appetite for Nazism when I took my first trip to Sachsenhausen in grade 4... The infirmary had pictures of dismembered human limbs and lamp shades of human skin. It's warped my fragile little mind beyond repair.

...lamp shades of human skin...
The Scythians used Human Leather for clothing....

hehe now there's some black humour.

The Scythians used Human Leather for clothing....

hehe now there's some black humour.
These were pictures of samples taken by this one female overseer. She had anyone with a nice tattoo killed and skinned. Not something you expect from a "civilized" culture... :(

These were pictures of samples taken by this one female overseer. She had anyone with a nice tattoo killed and skinned. Not something you expect from a "civilized" culture... :(
Well, the fact was that in Grade 7, they made us read Frank's diaries. No one wanted to, but they made us. Not a good start.
Then the book turned out to be boring. We were literally sitting through our German lessons reading it...day in, day out.
Then she turned out to be a bitch. A real bitch. Constantly whining and moaning about everything, always making others responsible for her own little problems.
Then she repeatedly yells at her sister, and her mother. By her own admission.
All this I took into account when we were supposed to "write a letter to Anne". I made the suggestion that she should be more considerate toward her fellow man. I did that in a tone befitting one in Grade 7 writing to a 13 year old girl.
And things went to strange new places...

Well, the fact was that in Grade 7, they made us read Frank's diaries. No one wanted to, but they made us. Not a good start.
Then the book turned out to be boring. We were literally sitting through our German lessons reading it...day in, day out.
Then she turned out to be a bitch. A real bitch. Constantly whining and moaning about everything, always making others responsible for her own little problems.
Then she repeatedly yells at her sister, and her mother. By her own admission.
All this I took into account when we were supposed to "write a letter to Anne". I made the suggestion that she should be more considerate toward her fellow man. I did that in a tone befitting one in Grade 7 writing to a 13 year old girl.
And things went to strange new places...
I'm kinda glad I was never forced to read it. (It hasn't gotten me to read it anyway). I've hated some books I got forced to read, but that was usually in English classes...
The book aside, have you been to the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam?

Thank for the link, I needed it.

Speaking of Germany (Sorry if this is off topic) why haven't they got a permanant seat on the UN security council?

Dear Gateway Driver,

Please read your history books, under the chapter headed: World War II

Germany, Italy & Japan were the defeated nations and were not allowed a seat on the UN Security council.
Only the victorious powers were: USA, China, Russia, France & Britian.

...The book aside, have you been to the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam?
Nope. Never set a foot into the Netherlands...strangely enough my feet never took me there.

-snip-
a) that was answered already
b) Actually it was Taiwan that had the seat initially, they switched with the PRC later on.

Dear Gateway Driver,

Please read your history books, under the chapter headed: World War II

Germany, Italy & Japan were the defeated nations and were not allowed a seat on the UN Security council.
Only the victorious powers were: USA, China, Russia, France & Britian.
Well, actually France and China don't count as "victorious powers". They only got a seat at the behest of one of the others, Russia in China's case and Britain in France's.

Nope. Never set a foot into the Netherlands...strangely enough my feet never took me there.
They've made quite a bit out of it. The last time I was there, there was a special room with several voting buttons. The screens had examples of Freedom of Speach vs. Protection of Minorities. They had various things like soccer club's using anti-semitic jeers, islamic hate preachers and the attempt to ban the NPD. It was quite interesting. For anyone not interested in Anne's life, just rush through and enjoy the multimedia shows at the end.
That and there's plenty of other good reasons to visit Amsterdam :D

That and there's plenty of other good reasons to visit Amsterdam :D
indeed...

The presidency of the European Union changes hands every six months, Last period's president was the Prime Minister of Luxemburg, before them it was Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, i can't recall the last time Britain had it but i presume it was many years ago, next period's president will be either Jaques Chirac or his successor. there is reluctancy from other countries to take a step further into modelling their economies after Britain's because it might be costly and many small businesses and enterprises might suffer because there is a stronger emphasis and attention on medium to big sized businesses because they produce more, thanks to this we've been growing faster that the other members of the EU, around 3% each year (the ones before expansion in May 2004). we also have liberalised the services industry but it was a gamble which didn't turn out quiet right because jobs in the services industry have been lost to countries like India and Eastern Europe, for that reason Britain is no longer a pioneer in the services inductry which at one point employed over 8 million people out of the total working population, the UK's population is around 58-60 million so it is a substantial "chunk" :(

indeed...
Say, do you know BILDblog (http://www.bildblog.de) ?

Dear Gateway Driver,

Please read your history books, under the chapter headed: World War II

Germany, Italy & Japan were the defeated nations and were not allowed a seat on the UN Security council.
Only the victorious powers were: USA, China, Russia, France & Britian.

My point is that that why hasn't it changed since then, I know why they didn't get a seat originally but thats not much of a reason why the haven't got one now is it? Especially as the are one of the main contributors to the UN.

My point is that that why hasn't it changed since then, I know why they didn't get a seat originally but thats not much of a reason why the haven't got one now is it? Especially as the are one of the main contributors to the UN.

He also has one minor problem, Germany is on the Security Council. I'll assume he ment a permenant seat.

He also has one minor problem, Germany is on the Security Council. I'll assume he ment a permenant seat.

thats what i meant yes

[somewhat of a non-sequitor]

if turkey joins the EU why can't Canada?

[somewhat of a non-sequitor]

if turkey joins the EU why can't Canada?

at least 5 % of Turkey is said to be in Europe

[somewhat of a non-sequitor]

if turkey joins the EU why can't Canada?

Because Canada isn't part of Europe whereas Turkey is.

(...)
I won't mention the Germans - but I for one would not give them a third chance at European domination, and especially not a seat on the security council - can't we persuade the Americans to emigrate to Pluto and take the Germans with them so they can warplay out of everyone's way and let the rest of the world chill out a bit...
I believe it is you who should chill out a bit! It's been more than 65 years since Germany has started any trouble and I'm definitely sure that we won't start anything anytime soon. (Given that people like you stop pissing us off! :D)
If anything, I believe that the German foreign policy is one of most chilled around the world.
As for European domination - Germany still is the country with the largest population in Europe. It's only fair that Germany gets its share of where the EU is headed.
I would've welcomed the new Constitution which would have instituted the double majority: Majority of country's votes and majority of population. The way things are now (25 members, each member a veto-right, all count equal) is what hinders the EU from getting anywhere.

BTW: I just called NASA and they still have a seat for you on their Deep Impact II mission. :p

He also has one minor problem, Germany is on the Security Council. I'll assume he ment a permenant seat.
Not anymore, though: Germany used to have the Presidency of the UNSC not so long back, but it was rotated out...
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html

Not anymore, though: Germany used to have the Presidency of the UNSC not so long back, but it was rotated out...
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html

Ahh so Germany's time was up on the council! I couldn't remember when their term ended. The fact is though that they were on the UNSC though not as a permanent member.

Ahh so Germany's time was up on the council! I couldn't remember when their term ended. The fact is though that they were on the UNSC though not as a permanent member.
And I believe they did a pretty good job and would continue to do so if given the chance.

In addition to what has been said before I'd like to add that a permanent member without a veto-right wouldn't make any sense whatsoever! That's like "Sure, you can buy your bus-ticket, but don't you dare get on that bus!!!". Just a thought on the side.

And I believe they did a pretty good job and would continue to do so if given the chance.

In addition to what has been said before I'd like to add that a permanent member without a veto-right wouldn't make any sense whatsoever! That's like "Sure, you can buy your bus-ticket, but don't you dare get on that bus!!!". Just a thought on the side.

I would say you were on the bus but not ticket, therefore each time an inspection happens you have to f**k off...but at least your still on for the ride...

Thank for the link, I needed it.

Speaking of Germany (Sorry if this is off topic) why haven't they got a permanant seat on the UN security council?

World Wars 1 and 2

they showed their ass in the first half of the 20th century and are still being punished for it.

And yet you did mention them.
Care to explain?

Mentioned them once but I thought I'd got away with it!

World Wars 1 and 2

they showed their ass in the first half of the 20th century and are still being punished for it.

As I said before its pointless judging on what happened 65 years ago