The little political corner

[CrazyyAngel]

Well, time for me to start a new thread. Haven't done that in a while. I know we usually shouldn't discuss politics in here, but since we all debated about our beloved Georgie-boy when he was reelected, I thought I'd ask your opinion abou this.

Two days ago, there were elections in Germanys most populous state ... North Rhine-Westphalia. After 39 years of ruling it, the Social Democrats (SPD) lost it to the Christian-Democratic Union (CDU).

At the same evening, german government (run by a Social Democrats/Greens coalition) proposed an early general election. Meaning that our next general election will be most likely this fall, and not in the fall of 2006 as they would normally be.

After the victory on sunday, I have no doubt the CDU will win the general elections too, which will put the first female german chancellor in Angela Merkel into office.

Since I am not a fan of the CDU by any means, I worry about the future of my country. We will get closer again to your cowboy, meaning our armed forces will get to play in which ever little war George starts next.

But what my question and the point of this thread is ... How is this seen in other countries?

Do you know about those elections, the proposed early general elections and what it might mean for Germany? Do you have any opinion about it or about what it might mean for Europe as a whole (as there will be definite changes in our dealings with the EU)?

Well ... post away ...

CA

 

[amicus]

Well...not that it matters, but I am somewhat of a 'news junkie' after 30 years of doing news on radio; and I have cable news on every waking hour, usually in the background and especially since 9/11....

I must tell you that from four different channels there has been no mention of German elections that I heard about. Even the recent Brit elections received minimal coverage in the U.S.

In general, it is easy to determine what your politics are and you may not like my perception of European affairs.

Politics seem to go in cycles and trends and since the mid 60's, in this country, the 'left', green, ecologists, pro feminists, pro gay, pro abortion, pro 'large' government has had an amazing run.

It is coming to an end here and perhaps in Europe.

I sense you are a 'true believer' in the 'rightness' of your political views, just as I am in my totally opposite position.

In this country we are about to see more attention paid to ethics and morality, a limit placed on the Liberal agenda of the past generation and a movement towards more individual liberty and freedom, lower taxes and less government involvement in private affairs.

Militarily I expect a wider confrontation in the Middle East, perhaps North Korea and if the Europeans don't join with America and England in combatting international terrorism, then you will find your self on the outside looking in from all aspects.

"The times they are a changin', m'dear..." like it or not...

amicus...

 

[cantdog]

I kind of watch Germany, but I bet not as closely as our Brits and Swedes are doing.

The German anti-war stance in 2002-2003 was -- at least in part -- caused by Chancellor Schroeder's electoral needs. With the German pacifist movement still relevant for the vote, Schroeder was able to use the international crisis to gain sympathies from the anti-war movement, hence prevailing over his Christian-Democrat adversaries.

Schroeder has nonetheless discreetly helped American operations in Kuwait, in the context of Iraqi Freedom, by sending GSG-9 counterterrorism squads and highly skilled anti-mine personnel. Berlin has certainly stood with France (and Russia) insisting that the U.S. war against Ba'athist Iraq wasn't justified, using the official reason that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his determination to use them have proved false. Nevertheless, Germany has used softer words than France in expressing dissent.

In fact, Berlin started a multi-faced strategy aimed at reinforcing its sovereignty while at the same time emerging as the most important E.U. nation-state.

German-American relations have been at the top of Schroeder's priorities in 2003-2004, when the Social-Democrat chancellor pushed for a transatlantic reconciliation by promoting the new German-American Partnership in the 21st Century that some French observers interpret as a possible German-American co-dominium over Europe. The second pillar of this strategy has been a constant advance in key E.U. bureaucracy positions, where at least a German official is nowadays always present among the most influential decision makers.

Lastly, Berlin is seeking out Moscow in order to forge a "strategic partnership" (German technology and investment in exchange of Russian fossil energy), which is likely to upset the U.S., with the goal, in Schroeder's view, to become less and less dependant upon Middle Eastern oil. There was a major set of agreements April first between Moscow and Berlin. Moscow has lately been Germany's most important trade partner outside the EU, and the April first deals bring the two economies much closer.

This new German activism -- probably also helped by the U.S. decision to move troops eastwards (Poland, Bulgaria, Romania) after 50 years -- has worried some folks. European concerns of a German resurgence and of possible ambitions to dominate the EU still find their place, whether justified or not. Moreover, the German economy's poor performance in recent years and Berlin's unhappiness with the EU Stability and Growth Pact cause fears of a German wave of "euro-skepticism."

This is even more true since 2004, when consensus upon further European integration dropped dramatically in EU founder states like France, Italy and the Netherlands. Governments can't fully admit their dissatisfaction with the European Union after years of financial sacrifices made to enter the Euro-zone safely, but a serious crisis is looming after 2004's big enlargement.

George, or any American government with the big picture in mind, would like to see a strategic tie, like the one Schroeder's government proposed, prosper. Any move like that which both strengthens American involvement in the region and also creates paralysis in the process of European consolidation, is a good thing for the US. The EU is the only potential counterweight to US power on the current horizon. The slower they meld the better, therefore, from the point of view of a free hand elsewhere for American power.

But George's government was seriously miffed by Schroeder's refusal to frankly join his Coalition of the Willing. The CDU seems to stand ready to go along with that kind of idea, though. A CDU Germany would also stand to prevent any EU momentum, and would likely fall in line with George's imperial plans.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

How is this seen in other countries?

Here in Portugal, there have been the usual news. There's always some relevance given to our European partners' politics - the British elections earlier this month, the upcoming French referendum, the whole situation you describe in Germany...

The perception we have - and this applies to most national or regional elections in Europe - is that it doesn't really matter much. The big picture won't be altered. All governments in Europe are Social-Democrats, regardless of what they call themselves, and they'll keep fundamentally true to those ideals.

A change in German government can mean a slight approach to the US, or a slight departure, but never a return to blind militarism; it can mean a slight deceleration or acceleration in Europe, but never a halt. At the end of the day, it will all be good.

 

[R. Richard]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is a Social Democrat? Are there Antisocial Democrats? Why can they not be just plain Democrats? [We have those in the USofA.]

 

[Couture]

Can someone please tell me what the hell Germany is?

 

[Op_Cit]

Various key words or perhaps the general trend of this thread only bring to mind the voice of Basil Faulty saying, "Whatever you do, don't mention the war."

 

[oggbashan]

From my perspective the political party running Germany matters far less than the weakness of the German economy.

Germany is not meeting its economic indicators required by membership of the Eurozone and is unlikely to be able to until it can provide more employment not only in what was East Germany but also in traditional heavy industrial areas such as North Rhine-Westphalia.

We in the UK suffered considerable pain under Mrs Thatcher and later leaders as we adjusted to the new economic climate in the world. Our heavy industries have shrunk because they couldn't compete with the Far East. Our last major car manufacturer is in liquidation even after we effectively sold it to the Chinese.

Over the last twenty years employees have lost rights and employers have gained flexibility at the expense of more regulations, stealth taxes and paperwork. Even so, French employers regard the UK as the promised land where they can hire and fire staff with little trouble.

Germany needs to address labour flexibility if it is going to pull itself back to a high level of employment and economic growth. Whoever is in power - that process will hurt and is unlikely to attract votes. If the CDU take the necessary measures they might have a brief period of power and then will be damned for years by the memory of the pain they caused. Your Chancellor may be handing the CDU a poisoned chalice.

Og

 

[ishtat]

Angela Merkel is no Margaret Thatcher. She would be similar to a moderate Republican in the USA.

Amicus asked what is a social democrat. I would suggest that the whole of Western Europe, the USA, Japan, Australia are all social democracies in that they have adopted the socialist economics of JM Keynes & JK Galbraith in developing safety nets funded by government for the economically and socially disadvantaged. The main features are
1 Government funded pensions
2 Unemployment Pay
3 the use of government capital in recessionary times to kick start the economy and taxation policy to control inflation in boom periods.

In Australia the ruling party is called the Liberals but they are more like (US) conservative Republicans but with no religious interest.

 

[oggbashan]

I did say 'if the CDU...'

I don't think they would and therefore will be blamed for Germany's continuing economic woes. They could be in a 'damned if they do; damned if they don't' situation.

A comment: Margaret Thatcher and the UK Conservative party are much more committed to social welfare than any equivalent in the US. They accept the welfare state and their difference from the Labour Party is only about how it is managed and targeted.

Og

 

[CrazyyAngel]

I kind of watch Germany, but I bet not as closely as our Brits and Swedes are doing.

The German anti-war stance in 2002-2003 was -- at least in part -- caused by Chancellor Schroeder's electoral needs. With the German pacifist movement still relevant for the vote, Schroeder was able to use the international crisis to gain sympathies from the anti-war movement, hence prevailing over his Christian-Democrat adversaries.

Schroeder has nonetheless discreetly helped American operations in Kuwait, in the context of Iraqi Freedom, by sending GSG-9 counterterrorism squads and highly skilled anti-mine personnel. Berlin has certainly stood with France (and Russia) insisting that the U.S. war against Ba'athist Iraq wasn't justified, using the official reason that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his determination to use them have proved false. Nevertheless, Germany has used softer words than France in expressing dissent.

In fact, Berlin started a multi-faced strategy aimed at reinforcing its sovereignty while at the same time emerging as the most important E.U. nation-state.

German-American relations have been at the top of Schroeder's priorities in 2003-2004, when the Social-Democrat chancellor pushed for a transatlantic reconciliation by promoting the new German-American Partnership in the 21st Century that some French observers interpret as a possible German-American co-dominium over Europe. The second pillar of this strategy has been a constant advance in key E.U. bureaucracy positions, where at least a German official is nowadays always present among the most influential decision makers.

Lastly, Berlin is seeking out Moscow in order to forge a "strategic partnership" (German technology and investment in exchange of Russian fossil energy), which is likely to upset the U.S., with the goal, in Schroeder's view, to become less and less dependant upon Middle Eastern oil. There was a major set of agreements April first between Moscow and Berlin. Moscow has lately been Germany's most important trade partner outside the EU, and the April first deals bring the two economies much closer.

This new German activism -- probably also helped by the U.S. decision to move troops eastwards (Poland, Bulgaria, Romania) after 50 years -- has worried some folks. European concerns of a German resurgence and of possible ambitions to dominate the EU still find their place, whether justified or not. Moreover, the German economy's poor performance in recent years and Berlin's unhappiness with the EU Stability and Growth Pact cause fears of a German wave of "euro-skepticism."

This is even more true since 2004, when consensus upon further European integration dropped dramatically in EU founder states like France, Italy and the Netherlands. Governments can't fully admit their dissatisfaction with the European Union after years of financial sacrifices made to enter the Euro-zone safely, but a serious crisis is looming after 2004's big enlargement.

George, or any American government with the big picture in mind, would like to see a strategic tie, like the one Schroeder's government proposed, prosper. Any move like that which both strengthens American involvement in the region and also creates paralysis in the process of European consolidation, is a good thing for the US. The EU is the only potential counterweight to US power on the current horizon. The slower they meld the better, therefore, from the point of view of a free hand elsewhere for American power.

But George's government was seriously miffed by Schroeder's refusal to frankly join his Coalition of the Willing. The CDU seems to stand ready to go along with that kind of idea, though. A CDU Germany would also stand to prevent any EU momentum, and would likely fall in line with George's imperial plans.

Äh ... wow. Never seen it that way and didn't even know about some of your facts. So I kind of don't have a response .

Germany needs to address labour flexibility if it is going to pull itself back to a high level of employment and economic growth. Whoever is in power - that process will hurt and is unlikely to attract votes. If the CDU take the necessary measures they might have a brief period of power and then will be damned for years by the memory of the pain they caused. Your Chancellor may be handing the CDU a poisoned chalice.

That may be so, but I for one would welcome radical changes and someone who frankly doesn't give a shit about votes and what people might think of him in the future as long as the direction this country is changed. But unfortunately noone in this country is willing to do so. Any party might have plans for what is needed to be done ... but for that exact same reason (beeing damned for years) noone will do it, cause they all want to be reelected.

Angela Merkel is no Margaret Thatcher.

No definitly not. And Angela Merkel shouldnt be chancellor. She is a woman (although that's meant more tongue in cheek), she is from the former East Germany and besides being not particularly attractive she doesn't have any charisma. She looks lost most of the time, there is no thrive. But unfortunately that won't matter much, once election comes around ...

And so it begins ...

CA

 

[amicus]

Og said, in part: "...Over the last twenty years employees have lost rights and employers have gained flexibility at the expense of more regulations, stealth taxes and paperwork. Even so, French employers regard the UK as the promised land where they can hire and fire staff with little trouble...."

Now I like Og, now and then, as he seems sincere in his posts and attempts to provide accurate information on various issues.

However, as implied in the above quote, the old Marxist concept of class conflict, between 'employees and employers' is a little worn out.

In the United States, and I dare say, much of the modern world, more and more people now have a vested interest in business and industry through the Stock Market. In the US nearly half of all adults have market investments.

Many nations in Europe have experimented with shorter work weeks, free medical care, guaranteed retirement benefits et cetera, all brought to reality by those who believe that the workers, the employees, the 'proletariart' are the be all and end all of an economic and political system.

To that end, many Europeans have so regulated society that business and industry has moved elsewhere; housing is scarce, prices are high and worst of all, people face an uncertain future.

Intellectuals may not comprehend as the University lot are usually pampered the most, but the people in general know that if the entrepenurial spirit is controlled, restricted, managed, it will be destroyed and those who can create jobs and employment will just not do it.

I suppose the 'dream' of having all essential needs guaranteed and met by government is a common thing for many people. Rather like being a child again where everything is taken care of.

But, it just doesn't work that way. Even to bring a loaf of bread to the market place, investment, risk, capital, skill, dedication, knowledge and experience goes into a bakery. Those ingredients are provided by individuals who wish to exchange their efforts for the means to live.

To force businesses to function as government wishes will destroy the economy. People with skill and knowledge and money to invest will not function with a gun pointed at their heads, which is what the power of government represents.

A free market place wherein both the employer and the employee are 'protected' by government is the only economic system that has ever worked.

good luck...


amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

Many nations in Europe have experimented with shorter work weeks, free medical care, guaranteed retirement benefits et cetera, all brought to reality by those who believe that the workers, the employees, the 'proletariart' are the be all and end all of an economic and political system.

To that end, many Europeans have so regulated society that business and industry has moved elsewhere; housing is scarce, prices are high and worst of all, people face an uncertain future...

amicus...

I was making the contrast between the UK, which has made significant changes to move further towards a freer labour market, and Germany that still has to take on board the challenge of global trading. The UK has the longest working week in Europe, the fewest holidays and actually spends less of its GDP on social welfare including its health service than most European countries. The UK has deregulated many of its labour laws but the taxation on employing staff has increased to such an extent that outsourcing work to Third World countries is commonplace. The remaining workers have to adapt to the new environment.

Business has moved elsewhere because of lower labour costs in China and the Far East. For example China is supplying much of Europe's cheap clothing at the expense of other former suppliers such as Sri Lanka and Thailand. Part of that change is due to the value of the yuan which is artificially depressed.

The UK has changed and is still changing. Some other European countries (and the US) are some way behind in the process. The UK is not the most flexible economy in the world - that title is probably still held by Hong Kong - but is better than many.

Og

 

[amicus]

Once again 'Og' has good input: "...Business has moved elsewhere because of lower labour costs in China and the Far East. For example China is supplying much of Europe's cheap clothing at the expense of other former suppliers such as Sri Lanka and Thailand. Part of that change is due to the value of the yuan which is artificially depressed. ..."

Reading that made me recall the trade routes, the 'Silk Road' of ancient China, and the trade 'Empire' of great Britain.

On a personal note, in the 50's, I would not touch a Japanese or German product as a carryover of hatred from world war two.

Even now when I make a purchase and notice a 'made in china' tag, or Taiwan or Malaysia or India, it makes me take a second glance.

I watch a lot of science channel television and I am often amazed at complete automobile assembly lines run entirely by robots.

The 'Labour' market is truly changing as computers and mechanization looms larger each passing year.

Thank you for the thoughtful post...


amicus...