 |
| |
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
To further Oerdin's education: there's an immense amount of bazaar going on in the council of ministers. Many times alliances are formed on completely irrelevant agreements than the subject at hand.
For example: the UK can agree to back Germany for a watered down draft on M&A rules if Germany would back the UK for a watered down temprary emplyed benefits bill. And seeing as there's a lack of transparency in the CoM meetings the UK minister can come out and say sorry, I tried to push for the draft I promised you but the bad EU/commission/whatever wouldn't let me. Whereas he himself would have voted against the bill he had promised to the public. Happens a lot, regardless of which country. It's a process known as "scapegoating the commission". So what Spiffor says it's not interily impossible. France and Germany could have given lots of concessions to other MS to persuade them to vote in their favor.
However for such important and cornerstone legislation as the pact I doubt it would have been dissapproved if other MS wouldn't also like to have it ammended. It touches fundamentals of every internal national policy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Germany and France represent 60% of the EU's financial power. If a draft doesn't work for 60% of the EU then it could be deemed problematic. However and despite their economic power both France and Germany can be effectively outvoted in the CoM meetings by a coalition of other MS that wouldn't even have to include the UK. There have been countries which were vehemently against changing the pact such as Holland and Austria. The goal is what the pact says: "Pact of Growth and Stability". Not the pact itself. Personally, I find more disturbing that the CoM sidestepped the commission twice in such a small time than anything else.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
I disagree that the Stability Pact is 'stupid'. Now why is it called the stability pact? It is generally agreed that the keyneasian policies during the interwar years which included a reliance on deficit financing and subsequent competitive devaluations greatly destabilized the european economies, and that to such an extent that economic competition was eventually substituted by a more overt military competition.
The main reason why Germany and France have been unable to abide by the pact has been due to pressure from corporations and internatinal finance to lower taxes. This is done for two reasons. Firstly it will force the states to cut down on welfare spending, which presumably will create more competetion in the job market, lowering the wage of the average worker. This will bring more profit to the capitalists. Secondly tax cuts will of course also benefit the capitalists in a direct way since it will exempt them from 'cruel' taxes on salaries.
This two pronged attack will invariably result in a further 'proletarization' of the middle class. Would this not mean that there would be a danger of a socialist backlash? No, because the media is owned by the capitalists and can through propaganda direct the dispair of the workers towards foreign elements and entice their belief in nationalism. This hostility will of course mainly be towards the muslim minorities.
Then the connection between the Muslim minority and the Muslim world will no be too diffcicult to make. Since the capitalist is in need of new markets. Not for products, which can be sold, but for investements in infrastracture, such as oil refineries, hospitals, factories and so on, it would make sense for them to target the Araba nations. They can be conquered one by one and the capitalists can then get 'rebuilding' contracts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
The main reason why Germany and France have been unable to abide by the pact has been due to pressure from corporations and internatinal finance to lower taxes. This is done for two reasons. |
I seem to be hearing this more and more and knowing the foam at the mouth frenzy of the private companies to bring down the social welfare structure.... it seems plausible. Especially if combined with Shroeder's resistance to abolish workers' rights.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
I could be wrong, but didn't Schroeder just push a 30% tax cut through the Bundestag. That, if true, is hardly a 'miniscule' tax cut.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Both France & Germany have very high fixed spending programs which need trimming. Even if taxes weren't cut there would still be long term deficites due to the high fixed spending. |
The bloated public sector is a problem. However the problem derives from the fact that an increasing amount is set aside for control measures to make sure that no one gets a free ride. My suggestion would be that great savings can be made by cutting down on office space and all the equipment that goes with it, and simply provide each citizen with a basic free annual income. Also known as 'citizen's pay'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
Did you forget the American boycott directed specifically against these two countries, and designed to hurt them as much as possible? |
We boycotted France and Germany? Really!? When did this happen? Gosh, I need to keep up with the times.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I guess they believe it's the only way to have our currency compete against the $ as the international currency in the future. |
I am afraid you are wrong on this one. The only decision which could result in decreasing the value of the € versus the $ is a decrease of the interest rate which are already quite low, without insurance that this would produce the expected effect. And compared to the £, the Swiss Franc and the Yen, the € has not dramatically gone upward.
What confirms that everything is not caused by the rates of exchange, is that, despite the sharp fall of the US$, the US foreign trade account does not improve.
The € is ALREADY an international currency (15% of central banks reserves are made of €), with a respectable share of international transactions, only because the european economy is really big and Europe is in peace, and this despite everything not perfect.
I am sure that the last thing desired by the ECB is to destabilized the US $, particularly at a time when they have not solved the problem of the twin deficits.
Last edited by DAVOUT on 02-12-2003 at 23:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:32
|
|
This is one of the things I was ranting about last summer. To be more accurate, that the power twins Chirac and Schroeder (lets not mix up the people, they're different than these two) will get their ways every single time they want to. And, that their goal is to have a bigger influence to Europe SO THEY CAN benefit from it and have even more power. And that we will be doing what ever they decide, and when it's tiem for them to do, they can dodge it when ever they want to do so.
I was confronted with arguments such as: Everyone is truly equal in the EU. It is not possible. Even small ones have impact, everyone has to follow the rules and are equal in the face of the rules.
Hmm.. I guess the game hater was right after all! 
Oh yes.. and check this out, it happened exactly like that. And when you say 'you small ones can team up and beat the big ones'.. Listen to yourselves.. does it make us small ones equal? NO! We have to be equal, small or big! Not 'when you all gang up against me, you'll be about as big as I am'. That's not equality. Then people started going on how true equality is impossible. I guess you are right about that one. But if this is one of those 'well why don't you all gang up and start raining on these two'... it's not equality!
And about the constitution.. yeah.. adn I wonder who makes that. We all together? Like I said, big ones get their will through, adn we small ones are happy to get even one thing our way. But that means there are 10 things going the wrong way for us. But hey, we should be happy about the one thing! WRONG! We shouldn't, we should be outraged, we should ****ing stand up and fight! Give serious ultimatums. Either it goes like we all agreed, or this thing of ours is OVER. I'm tired fo this slow advancing tactics, because that's exactly what's going on.
It has been going on for years already, and still going strong. It means that we force things little by little, people will complain, but as long as we advance slowly, we will get to our final goal without huge obstacles. People are getting screwed.
I repeat again what we were promised before voting about joining the EU. THis was from the mouths of pro-EU:
No it doesn't mean we'll have to give up our own money.
No, it doesn't mean we start having common laws (like constitution)
No, we are as powerful as everyone else in there, and we will be heard.
No, it doesn't mean we'll be joining EU armies.
No, it doesn't mean we will have another leader system.
Oooooooops! I guess someone ****ed up!
And about that defense too, the mofos already have everything planned, and we're not in it. We get security guarantees if we say ok we want that, but we can't be in ANY control of it! Yeah souinds like a good deal to me. **** that!
And then there is our own country that ****s up the EU things too. The good things that comes out of being in EU for us citizens.. like we thought prices will go down. Food will be cheaper. This was promised to us. Cars won't be taxed so hard, because it's impossible inside EU to have one country with horrible nazi taxes.. OOOOOoops! I guess it happened!
And it's NOT getting ANY better, it's goign worse for the small ones. GOod for the big ones, bad for the small ones. TRUE Euros will love this, naturally, being Euro to them is like having BMW for guys with small dicks. Being proud about their own nationality is too oldschool, lame and history. Talk about some values here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:32
|
|
I, too, think that the future of the EU lies in the move of sovereignity from the nationstates to the Federation. but how will it happen? I dunno. The EU is very fascinating to me. I see some big upheavals, but I am certain that Europe will emerge united. ( but probably without Britain). There has always been a geopolitical pull to unite europe in the last 2 centuries, and now, with the two main powers on the continent united in this desire, and not competing with eachother, but moving close, almost as one ( Franco-German policy), and with Russia at an all-time low vis a vis them, I think that it's quite clear. Just think about it. Who will stop them?
|
|
| |
|
| |
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 21:42
Or just go back to Kosovo 
.
, is that the French and Germans found a way out of the Pact the moment it became the slightest burden for them to uphold the pact. The method they used to weasal out of it doesn't matter only that they did weasal out of it.
|