 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
... or "enjoy being crapped upon by France and Germany". Chirac and Schröder have an history of arrogance and selfishness in the EU, but I must admit I have never seen anything like that
From the BBC
quote:
European press review
Today's European papers are dominated by Tuesday's vote by eight EU countries to overrule the European Commission and allow France and Germany to escape penalties for breaching the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact.
Some commentators argue that the pact was in need of modification but all deplore the way in which the rules have been changed.
Slap in the face
The EU finance ministers' decision, France's Le Monde says, is "a real slap in the face for the European Commission" and "has opened a European crisis without precedent".
"This trial of strength against the Stability Pact for the benefit of France and Germany", the paper adds, "comes at a crucial time" as Europe negotiates on the draft of its first constitution.
France and Germany threw themselves against the security fence of the currency union and pulled the security personnel, the EU Commission, to the ground
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
Moreover, it says, "nobody knows how the Commission and the Council [of Ministers] will be able to act in future against other countries whose public finances get out of hand".
Under the heading "Irresponsible", a commentary in Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung agrees that the decision is detrimental.
The Stability Pact, the paper argues, can now no longer command respect, and the authority of those watching over it has been damaged.
It is particularly unhappy about the manner in which France and Germany "threw themselves against the security fence of the currency union and pulled the security personnel, the EU Commission, to the ground".
"If this is the heart of the community," it says, "then there is cause for concern."
In the light of what has happened, the paper adds, the "German-French union much mooted of late, would indeed represent a threat rather than the promise of leadership".
It is permissible to change the rules, but not by breaking them
Die Welt
Berliner Zeitung rejects the argument that further cutbacks as demanded by the Commission would slow down German economy recovery.
"After all," it says, "who says that the violation of the Stability Pact will not lead to even greater uncertainty among consumers and investors?"
Still in Germany, Die Welt questions the legality of the finance ministers' decision.
By blocking EU Commission proceedings, the paper says, "Germany has broken the law and destroyed trust, not just at home but across Europe".
It concedes that it might be useful to modify the pact but adds that this does not justify Berlin's stance.
"It is permissible to change the rules, but not by breaking them."
Unfair but sensible
Austria's Der Standard argues that the finance ministers' move is understandable.
The Pact is dead. So what? Everybody up to and including the Commission deplored its 'stupid rigidity'
Liberation
"It is unfair that countries which do not comply with obligations should be granted generous exemptions, also because smaller countries, let alone the unruly southern Europeans, would presumably have received a rather serious thrashing and a stiff penalty."
But, it adds, the decision is "sensible" because otherwise Europe could forget about economic recovery.
"The Stability Pact Mark I is dead, and that's a good thing", the paper concludes, but this "does not mean that a completely new Stability Pact Mark II compelling countries to carry out real reforms, will not be urgently needed."
France's Liberation makes a similar point.
"The Pact is dead. So what? Everybody up to and including the (European) Commission deplored its 'stupid rigidity'."
But it also finds it "unhelpful" that Paris and Berlin should have chosen to "add an institutional crisis" to a community of nations already "finding themselves unable to agree on how to live together when their number rises to 25".
Bad example
"Welcome to a European house where you can do as you please," says a commentary in Paris's Nouvel Observateur .
Such, the paper believes, is the message sent by France and Germany to the 10 countries due to join the EU next year.
French arrogance has never been in such rude health
Nouvel Observateur
The paper argues that France's deficit problems are caused by budgetary choices, not the international economic climate.
"In opting to cut taxes for political reasons", it says, the government "chose to engage in petty fiddling to the detriment of previous undertakings".
"French arrogance has never been in such rude health," it adds.
In Spain, ABC fears the decision may damage the euro which, it says, "before reaching adulthood is suffering from the irresponsibility of its parents".
The treatment accorded to France and Germany, the paper adds, "is not the best of examples" for those due to join in 2004, "for they have learnt that they are joining a club where the rules are changed when they don't suit senior members".
El Mundo also believes that the "Euroscandal" has seriously weakened the European project.
"France and Germany," it says, "have secured a Pyrrhic victory".
"They have won, but the cost of their triumph will be tremendous."
Double standards
The Czech daily Pravo contrasts the treatment accorded to Paris and Berlin with the "ruthless and unyielding" attitude to the ten candidate countries.
"Now that the EU Council, so strict with the poor, has turned an obliging blind eye to the two largest and richest members, the newcomers will hardly be willing to continue to strive to correct their shortcomings," it says.
The problem, it adds, is that "two sets of standards are beginning to be applied in the EU".
"To some, the rules are applied ruthlessly, while others get the softer approach."
"Next time round," it warns, "after more of the smaller countries have joined, the voting on sanctions might go the other way."
The European press review is compiled by BBC Monitoring from internet editions of the main European newspapers and some early printed editions. |
Summary version:
France's and Germany's deficits will be higher than allowed in the stability pact. Had these countries been weak like Portugal or Greece, they would have recieved hefty fines from the EU. But since France and Germany are powerful, they managed to get away with it: the EU has suspended charges against both countries.
Short history:
When the Euro was put into place, Germany and France insisted that all Euro-countries follow a "stability pact", i.e that their deficit doesn't get higher than 3% of the GNP, except in times of significant recession. The pact also features rules for maximum inflation. When a country doesn't follow the rules, it has to pay a fine to the EU.
In the past, France and Germany mercilessly made sure the pact was enforced everytime some small country disobeyed it.
But now that France and Germany are having too high deficits, they use their power to make sure they can get away with it. I'm sure the newcomers in the EU are thrilled now! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Well there is no definite answer for the Stability Pact. Even one of its strongest supporters Austria seems to back up. Oh I haven't read the BBC article. There are much better sources abut the EU than BBC.
Anyway, I know the matter already, France and Germany give plenty of money to the EU. So they can be "forgiven" one time or two.
But don't forget, in order for the council of ministers to bypass the commission there has to be a majority voting. So most of the EU agreed to it.
Also, if the rules don't work you change them. Nothing good in being a monolithic artioriosclerotic being.
The issue is to determine wether the stability pact was doing more good than bad.
Besides,don't forget that Germany and France have vowed to fall back in line by 2005.
I'm not "defeninding" them just saying it like it is.
As for the US they have guns no social health and violence, if that's a "superpower" I pray to God we'll never be one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
I'm not hairy you smelly rose beef. God has nothing to do with it. It's the people and the policies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
Can you people please get your **** together? We can't put the Chinese back in their spot for an additional several hundred years without a competent ally
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
Besides,don't forget that Germany and France have vowed to fall back in line by 2005. |
And we all know Chirac never breaks his promises 
In early 2002, Chirac promised a 0% deficit by 2007, and he promised the deficit would start shrinking immediately. In early 2003, when everybody in the EU knew his tax cuts and massive military spending would lead to increased deficits, he promised not to exceed 3%. And now this.
As for the rest of your post: I'm actually strongly against the Stability Pact. It was stupid from the beginning to give such objectives to the Pact: it should have aimed for growth rather than for stability. Heck, I even remember Ireland being yelled at because of its too high dynamism a few years past, because of the inflation (of Course, France and Germany were the most vociferous  ).
It would be most wise for the EU to get rid of this stupid pact altogether, and to have at last a sane economic policy. Unfortunately, Chirac-Schröder have just made sure the pact will continue to be enforced as soon as France and Germany won't have to fear sanctions anymore 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
However Spiffor I think you're a bit romantic. Don't forget that since EU's inception the final word on all major decisions rested on the member states, on a national governmental basis.
And the parliement isn't a solution either if you care to look at the M&A rules. It scrabbled Bolkesteins plan in 2001 propably due to pressure from the industries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
We can always bring the killer instinct back into the Japanese and set them loose. |
No sir, I believe I like them more when smiling and churning out 450000 tonnes of hello kitty merchandise annually. There's something about the whole "throwing the bayonetted corpses of dog filth manchurians into a mass grave for the Emperor" thing I'm not too comfortable with
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Obviously it can be said that the pact has problems. If you see the votes of the council ministers you'll see that most voted against (hence the overule of the Commission). Besides I see nothing wrong in giving a bit of space to Germany and France, if it wasn't for them there wouldn't be an EU. Spiffor's assertion about being powerful, that is true, but that they escaped for being powerful is not so true. The safety valves guarantee that both countries can be outvoted by a relative coalition of the other MS (not even counting the UK). The council of ministers actually decided against the pact not "in favor" of France and Germany I think.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't forget it. And I think it's bad, and it has been bad since maybe the 1960's. That the national governments have power (what the jargon calls "Intergovernmental Europe") has been obsolete for decades, and it only continues because the geezers at the helm want to keep their petty power. |
Bad or not but it is reality  And in one way or another it has worked out so far. Of course I'm in favour of it being reduced to ridiculously low proportions. But that's a proccess that takes time.
quote:
Sorry, I don't know of this case, and I'd be happy if you could tell me about it. For having worked there, I know the EU Parliament is a farce that gets very little done (actually, it gets many useless things done, but that's another story), except for voting the budget. But the day it becomes a real powerful Parliament is the day it'll become serious and professional. |
I've also been to the parliement on a number of occasions. Of course it's more or less toothless. However it provides for aminimum of an extra "democratic" shot. However in the M&A rules of 2001 by Bolkestein it voted against the rules which would have taken down nearly all the barriers for croborder mergers and aquisitions. The Commission's plan was the paragon of liberation, harmonization and unification of the european financial market and was aimed at spurring crossborder mergers. However many MS have protective barriers up so that they can protect their industries from a take over by a foreign company. Like France or Germany with Volkswagen or other countries too amonst them the Scandinavian ones with Sweden and Ericsson. What happened in 2001 is that the parliement which is supposed to be a supranational body and push for further integration shot down the commission's plan. Now, the council of ministers shot down the plan again and in its place approved a watered down version which will let MS decide for themsleves if they'd bring down the protective barriers to hostile aquisitions
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:32
|
|
may i ask something about you europeans? you're saying that if a country goes into deficit, it has to pay more money to the EU as a fine?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
AS, yes. But the fines were meant as a financial discipline doctrine so that you wouldn't raise your deficit. However with some countries that have growth stagnation at the moment, one way of spurring growth is through public spending.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-11-2003 20:22
. You cannot imaine how moronic the European economic policies are)
|
|