The Joy of being a European...

[Dinner]

The pacts signed by the member states mean nothing if France and Germany can ignore them when ever they feel like it.

[Bereta_Eder]

The council of minister decided that. Educate yourself to what that means and then we can talk Or just go back to Kosovo

[Spiffor]

To help Oerdin's education:

The Council of Ministers is the body that represents all EU governments. It gets to vote on many kind of issues - it's the most important EU body, as it is the one that really decides. Each government has a different amount of votes, that unaccurately represent the population (so Luxemburg doesn't get to be as important as Germany).

That the Councils of Ministers agreed means that France and Germany were supported by other countries as well.

However, I'm pretty sure this agreement has been reached by some obscure haggling only powerful countries can afford. Again, if it was Portugal who had the problem, the EU would have slapped a fine and be done with it .

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Regarding the "toothless" EU parliament. I don't know much about it. But recently I followed a process of reforming European legislation about intelectual property. The bill that was proposed was very easy on patent requirements and allowed for source code of computer programmes to be patented.

Through intensive lobbying efforts, european open source and other communities managed to convince enough MPs and modify the bill so it excluded code patents.

This works the other way too, if relatively weak communities can psuh through something like that, imagine what big corporations do there on a daily bases

Actually the real "danger" from that goes with the Commission seeing as a) it is infinively more powerful that the EP and b) it is undermanned and often has to relly disproportionately to industry experts for its drafts. But yes the EP can also block or push to ammend legislation. However its influence by the industry lobby groups is, logically, equivalant to its power within the decision making process.

[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.

[Ben Kenobi]

How can it be joyful to be a European? All those women with hairy armpits.

No wonder we see economic growth stalled.

If the EU signed a flawed pact, why is it only when it threatens the interests of Germany and France that the pact would be cancelled?

I find it difficult to assess this reaction as anything other than for selfish motives, rather than to 'reform' the pact.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How can it be joyful to be a European? All those women with hairy armpits.

I have never met any European woman my age with hairy armpits !

The reason of our stalled growth is their hairy nipples

[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.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by paiktis22
The council of minister decided that. Educate yourself to what that means and then we can talk

The point, my hairy Greek friend , 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.

Or just go back to Kosovo

Nah, I'm going to Iraq instead.

[Bereta_Eder]

Apparently you didn't understand anything. So yeah just go to Iraq my bastard yank friend Things are much simpler there.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The point, my hairy Greek friend , 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.

Simple coincidence.

[Bereta_Eder]

Just look at the capital inflows of the EU compared to the US and then tell me where there's wrong in what happens And for the Iraqi goers, the EU capital inflows have multitripped in September. The world sees the EU as a safe investment heaven whereas you run to Iraq. BUT, c'est la vie

[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.

[Dinner]

I agree that the stability pact was & is needed but the primary reason for the current deficits in France and Germany is bloated social spending not the extremely minor tax reductions. 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.

[Bereta_Eder]

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.