A Philosopher's Mission to Save the EU

[pjotr]

Habermas, the Last European

A Philosopher's Mission to Save the EU

By Georg Diez


Jürgen Habermas is furious, and he wants Europe to know about it. The aging German philosopher is doing his best to attract attention to what he sees as Europe's crossroads. The EU, he feels, has far too little democratic legitimacy.

Jürgen Habermas has had enough. The philosopher is doing all he can these days to call attention to what he sees as the demise of the European ideal. He hopes he can help save it -- from inept politicians and the dark forces of the market.

Jürgen Habermas is angry. He's really angry. He is nothing short of furious -- because he takes it all personally.

He leans forward. He leans backward. He arranges his fidgety hands to illustrate his tirades before allowing them to fall back to his lap. He bangs on the table and yells: "Enough already!" He simply has no desire to see Europe consigned to the dustbin of world history.
"I'm speaking here as a citizen," he says. "I would rather be sitting back home at my desk, believe me. But this is too important. Everyone has to understand that we have critical decisions facing us. That's why I'm so involved in this debate. The European project can no longer continue in elite modus."

Enough already! Europe is his project. It is the project of his generation.

Jürgen Habermas, 82, wants to get the word out. He's sitting on stage at the Goethe Institute in Paris. Next to him sits a good-natured professor who asks six or seven questions in just under two hours -- answers that take fewer than 15 minutes are not Habermas' style.

Usually he says clever things like: "In this crisis, functional and systematic imperatives collide" -- referring to sovereign debts and the pressure of the markets.

Sometimes he shakes his head in consternation and says: "It's simply unacceptable, simply unacceptable" -- referring to the EU diktat and Greece's loss of national sovereignty.

'No Convictions'

And then he's really angry again: "I condemn the political parties. Our politicians have long been incapable of aspiring to anything whatsoever other than being re-elected. They have no political substance whatsoever, no convictions."

It's in the nature of this crisis that philosophy and bar-room politics occasionally find themselves on an equal footing.

It's also in the nature of this crisis that too many people say too much, and we could definitely use someone who approaches the problems systematically, as Habermas has done in his just published book.

But above all, it is in the nature of this crisis that the longer it continues, the more confusing it gets. It becomes more difficult to follow its twists and turns and to see who is responsible for what. And the whole time, alternatives are disappearing before our very eyes.

That's why Habermas is so angry: with the politicians, the "functional elite" and the media. "Are you from the press?" he asks a man in the audience who has posed a question. "No? Too bad."


Habermas, of course, isn't the only one complaining about the representative underpinnings of the powers that be. But, while there are many similarities between Habermas' vision and that promulgated by the Occupy Movement, Habermas meticulously spells out why Europe is a project that cannot be allowed to fail.

Habermas wants to get his message out. That's why he's sitting here. That's why he recently wrote an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper, in which he accused EU politicians of cynicism and "turning their backs on the European ideals." That's why he has just written a book -- a "booklet," as he calls it -- which the respected German weekly Die Zeit promptly compared with Immanuel Kant's 1795 essay "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch."

But does he have an answer to the question of which road democracy and capitalism should take?

A Quiet Coup d'État

"Zur Verfassung Europas" ("On Europe's Constitution") is the name of his new book, which is basically a long essay in which he describes how the essence of our democracy has changed under the pressure of the crisis and the frenzy of the markets. Habermas says that power has slipped from the hands of the people and shifted to bodies of questionable democratic legitimacy, such as the European Council. Basically, he suggests, the technocrats have long since staged a quiet coup d'état.

"On July 22, 2011, (German Chancellor) Angela Merkel and (French President) Nicolas Sarkozy agreed to a vague compromise -- which is certainly open to interpretation -- between German economic liberalism and French etatism," he writes. "All signs indicate that they would both like to transform the executive federalism enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty into an intergovernmental supremacy of the European Council that runs contrary to the spirit of the agreement."


The German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Habermas refers to the system that Merkel and Sarkozy have established during the crisis as a "post-democracy." The European Parliament barely has any influence. The European Commission has "an odd, suspended position," without really being responsible for what it does. Most importantly, however, he points to the European Council, which was given a central role in the Lisbon Treaty -- one that Habermas views as an "anomaly." He sees the Council as a "governmental body that engages in politics without being authorized to do so."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon

He sees a Europe in which states are driven by the markets, in which the EU exerts massive influence on the formation of new governments in Italy and Greece, and in which what he so passionately defends and loves about Europe has been simply turned on its head.

A Rare Phenomenon

At this point, it should be mentioned that Habermas is no malcontent, no pessimist, no prophet of doom -- he's a virtually unshakable optimist, and this is what makes him such a rare phenomenon in Germany.


Two Occupy protesters in London at the end of October. "Sometime after 2008," says Habermas, "I understood that the process of expansion, integration and democratization doesn't automatically move forward of its own accord, that it's reversible, that for the first time in the history of the EU, we are actually experiencing a dismantling of democracy. I didn't think this was possible. We've reached a crossroads."

Habermas problem as a philosopher has always been that he appears a bit humdrum because, despite all the big words, he is basically rather intelligible. He took his cultivated rage from Marx, his keen view of modernity from Freud and his clarity from the American pragmatists. He has always been a friendly elucidator, a rationalist and an anti-romanticist.

Nevertheless, his previous books "Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere" and "Between Facts and Norms" were of course somewhat different than the merry post-modern shadowboxing of French philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Jean Baudrillard. What's more, another of Habermas' publications, "Theory of Communicative Action," certainly has its pitfalls when it comes to his theory of "coercion-free discourse" which, even before the invention of Facebook and Twitter, were fairly bold, if not perhaps naïve.
Habermas was never a knife thrower like the Slovenian thinker Slavoj Žižek, and he was no juggler like the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk. He never put on a circus act, and he was always a leftist (although there are those who would disagree). He was on the side of the student movement until things got too hot for him. He took delight in the constitution and procedural matters. This also basically remains his position today.

Habermas truly believes in the rationality of the people. He truly believes in the old, ordered democracy. He truly believes in a public sphere that serves to make things better.

[pjotr]

Part 2: A Vision of Europe at the Crossroads

This also explains why he gazed happily at the audience on this mid-November evening in Paris. Habermas is a fairly tall, lanky man. As he stepped onto the stage, his relaxed gait gave him a slightly casual air. With his legs stretched out under the table, he seemed at home. Whether he's at a desk or not, this is his profession: communicating and exchanging ideas in public.

He was always there when it was a question of putting Germany back on course, in other words, on his course -- toward the West, on the path of reason: during the vitriolic debate among German historians in 1986 that focused on the country's approach to its World War II past; following German reunification in 1990; and during the Iraq War. It's the same story today as he sits here, at a table, in a closed room in the basement of the Goethe Institute, and speaks to an audience of 200 to 250 concerned, well-educated citizens. He says that he, the theorist of the public sphere, doesn't have a clue about Facebook and Twitter -- a statement which, of course, seems somewhat antiquated, almost even absurd. Habermas believes in the power of words and the rationality of discourse. This is philosophy unplugged.

While the activists of the Occupy movement refuse to formulate even a single clear demand, Habermas spells out precisely why he sees Europe as a project for civilization that must not be allowed to fail, and why the "global community" is not only feasible, but also necessary to reconcile democracy with capitalism. Otherwise, as he puts it, we run the risk of a kind of permanent state of emergency -- otherwise the countries will simply be driven by the markets. "Italy Races to Install Monti" was a headline in last week's Financial Times Europe.

On the other hand, they are not so far apart after all, the live-stream revolutionaries from Occupy and the book-writing philosopher. It's basically a division of labor -- between analog and digital, between debate and action. It's a playing field where everyone has his or her place, and it's not always clear who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. We are currently watching the rules being rewritten and the roles being redefined.

A Dismantling of Democracy

"Sometime after 2008," says Habermas over a glass of white wine after the debate, "I understood that the process of expansion, integration and democratization doesn't automatically move forward of its own accord, that it's reversible, that for the first time in the history of the EU, we are actually experiencing a dismantling of democracy. I didn't think this was possible. We've reached a crossroads."

It also has to be said: For being Germany's most important philosopher, he is a mind-bogglingly patient man. He is initially delighted that he has managed at last to find a journalist whom he can tell just how much he abhors the way certain media ingratiate themselves with Merkel -- how he detests this opportunist pact with power. But then he graciously praises the media for finally waking up last year and treating Europe in a manner that clearly demonstrates the extent of the problem.

"The political elite have actually no interest in explaining to the people that important decisions are made in Strasbourg; they are only afraid of losing their own power," he says, before being accosted by a woman who is not entirely in possession of her faculties. But that's how it is at such events -- that's how things go with coercion-free discourse. "I don't fully understand the normative consequences of the question," says Habermas. The response keeps the woman halfway at a distance.

He is, after all, a gentleman from an age when having an eloquent command of the language still meant something and men carried cloth handkerchiefs. He is a child of the war and perseveres, even when it seems like he's about to keel over. This is important to understanding why he takes the topic of Europe so personally. It has to do with the evil Germany of yesterday and the good Europe of tomorrow, with the transformation of past to future, with a continent that was once torn apart by guilt -- and is now torn apart by debt.

Without Complaint

In the past, there were enemies; today, there are markets -- that's how the historical situation could be described that Habermas sees before him. He is standing in an overcrowded, overheated auditorium of the Université Paris Descartes, two days before the evening at the Goethe Institute, and he is speaking to students who look like they would rather establish capitalism in Brussels or Beijing than spend the night in an Occupy movement tent.

After Habermas enters the hall, he immediately rearranges the seating on the stage and the nametags on the tables. Then the microphone won't work, which seems to be an element of communicative action in practice. Next, a professor gives a windy introduction, apparently part of the academic ritual in France.

Habermas accepts all this without complaint. He steps up to the lectern and explains the mistakes that were made in constructing the EU. He speaks of a lack of political union and of "embedded capitalism," a term he uses to describe a market economy controlled by politics. He makes the amorphous entity Brussels tangible in its contradictions, and points to the fact that the decisions of the European Council, which permeate our everyday life, basically have no legal, legitimate basis. He also speaks, though, of the opportunity that lies in the Lisbon Treaty of creating a union that is more democratic and politically effective. This can also emerge from the crisis, says Habermas. He is, after all, an optimist.

Then he's overwhelmed by the first wave of fatigue. He has to sit down. The air is stuffy, and it briefly seems as if he won't be able to continue with his presentation. After a glass of water, he stands up again.

He rails against "political defeatism" and begins the process of building a positive vision for Europe from the rubble of his analysis. He sketches the nation-state as a place in which the rights of the citizens are best protected, and how this notion could be implemented on a European level.

Reduced to Spectators

He says that states have no rights, "only people have rights," and then he takes the final step and brings the peoples of Europe and the citizens of Europe into position -- they are the actual historical actors in his eyes, not the states, not the governments. It is the citizens who, in the current manner that politics are done, have been reduced to spectators.

His vision is as follows: "The citizens of each individual country, who until now have had to accept how responsibilities have been reassigned across sovereign borders, could as European citizens bring their democratic influence to bear on the governments that are currently acting within a constitutional gray area."

This is Habermas's main point and what has been missing from the vision of Europe: a formula for what is wrong with the current construction. He doesn't see the EU as a commonwealth of states or as a federation but, rather, as something new. It is a legal construct that the peoples of Europe have agreed upon in concert with the citizens of Europe -- we with ourselves, in other words -- in a dual form and omitting each respective government. This naturally removes Merkel and Sarkozy's power base, but that's what he's aiming for anyway.

Then he's overwhelmed by a second wave of fatigue. He has to sit down again, and a professor brings him some orange juice. Habermas pulls out his handkerchief. Then he stands up and continues to speak about saving the "biotope of old Europe."

There is an alternative, he says, there is another way aside from the creeping shift in power that we are currently witnessing. The media "must" help citizens understand the enormous extent to which the EU influences their lives. The politicians "would" certainly understand the enormous pressure that would fall upon them if Europe failed. The EU "should" be democratized.

His presentation is like his book. It is not an indictment, although it certainly does at times have an aggressive tone; it is an analysis of the failure of European politics. Habermas offers no way out, no concrete answer to the question of which road democracy and capitalism should take.

A Vague Future and a Warning from the Past

All he offers is the kind of vision that a constitutional theorist is capable of formulating: The "global community" will have to sort it out. In the midst of the crisis, he still sees "the example of the European Union's elaborated concept of a constitutional cooperation between citizens and states" as the best way to build the "global community of citizens."

Habermas is, after all, a pragmatic optimist. He does not say what steps will take us from worse off to better off.

What he ultimately lacks is a convincing narrative. This also ties Habermas once again to the Occupy movement. But without a narrative there is no concept of change.

He receives a standing ovation at the end of his presentation.

"If the European project fails," he says, "then there is the question of how long it will take to reach the status quo again. Remember the German Revolution of 1848: When it failed, it took us 100 years to regain the same level of democracy as before."

A vague future and a warning from the past -- that's what Habermas offers us. The present is, at least for the time being, unattainable.

Translated from the German by Paul Cohen

[tufta]

Feb 22, 2012 0:01:20 GMT 1 pjotr said:

Habermas, the Last European

As we all know Germans are very fine people, but they have one vice. They tend to exaggerate.

[pjotr]

Feb 22, 2012 8:31:59 GMT 1 tufta said:

Feb 22, 2012 0:01:20 GMT 1 pjotr said:

Habermas, the Last European

As we all know Germans are very fine people, but they have one vice. They tend to exaggerate.

Again we agree. Germans sometimes are to serious and have a little bit a lack of putting things into perspective and to have sense of humor also in the serious matters (to enlighten things).
But I have to say that I like them, and know them in the Netherlands and Germany. I don't know what your experiance as a Pole in Poland and Germany is. Today I see them as a possitive force in Europe. They want the best for Europe and themselves and are less chauvinistic than then French and British with their nationalistic agenda's. The Germans in my view are realistic pragmatists. But ofcourse we look carefully at the axis Berlin-Paris, and sometimes dislike the powermachine what is behind that.

[tufta]

Feb 22, 2012 16:54:12 GMT 1 pjotr said:

But ofcourse we look carefully at the axis Berlin-Paris, and sometimes dislike the powermachine what is behind that.

Pjotr, I wonder how do you and your fellow compatriots (from the 'proEU' wing) presently see the role of Netherland in the EU. And what is the general position of your country, does it oppose the Berlin-Paris as represented by Mekozy or just uses the present status quo to multiply own well-being and wealth?

[pjotr]

Tufta,

We, the pro-European cosmopolitan liberals from the centre-left and the centre-right see the future of the Netherlands in the European Union and an expanding Union. The present troubles will fade away in time. The Dutch entrepreneurs, Europe oriented politicians, businessmen- and women, policy makers, bankers and thus investers see how for instance Rumania is developing itself. The Netherlands is one of the largest investors next to Italy, France and Germany. The negative news from the Netherlands ('The hotline for central- and Eastern-Europeans) did not only infuriate the Poles, but also the Rumanians and Bulgarians. Dutch entrepreneurs, diplomats, marketeers encountered scepsis, anger and distrust in Rumania due to the bad news from the Netherlands. Their dream, desire or wish would be that Wilders support would drop and the relationship with this Eastern-European country would be restored. Today the Dutch government -under pressure of Wilders- refuses to accept Rumania and Bulgaria as full and equal members. Rumania and Bulgaria are to corrupt in the eyes of Dutch government circles, and the PVV wants Bulgaria, Rumania and Greece out of the EU and the reintroduction of the old Dutch currency, the Guilders (de Gulden) in the Netherlands. Tufta, the Dutch role in the EU will always be linked to Germany, because economically were are very dependent on this large Eastern neighbour.

From one side the Dutch are very transatlantic in the EU (we are close allies and partners of the USA), and from the other hand we are a firm partner in the EU.
The Netherlands due to it's trade tradition and position in the world is very oriented on free international exchange of goods. To much power in the hands of the two largest continental Europan countries would be dangerous for the position of the smaller EU countries.

Cheers,
Pieter

P.S.- Personally I don't think the Germans and French have bad intensions in Europe. Fortunately Poland is integrated into this axis in the Weimar Traingle. My personal favor would be that the axis Berlin-Paris would be replaced or transformed to the Triangle Berlin-Paris-Warsaw. A good and strong Netherlands is in the interest of all Europeans, because we distribute and transport the goods the Europeans use via our importan and export skills and facilities (Rotterdam harbour, railways, highways and waterways).

[pjotr]

Mar 5, 2012 20:54:25 GMT 1 tufta said:

Feb 22, 2012 16:54:12 GMT 1 pjotr said:

But ofcourse we look carefully at the axis Berlin-Paris, and sometimes dislike the powermachine what is behind that.

Pjotr, I wonder how do you and your fellow compatriots (from the 'proEU' wing) presently see the role of Netherland in the EU. And what is the general position of your country, does it oppose the Berlin-Paris as represented by Mekozy or just uses the present status quo to multiply own well-being and wealth?

Tufta,

The role of the Netherlands in the EU is that of a pragmatic negociator, mediator, a sensible force who is aware of the political, diplomatic, financial-economical and monetarian circumstances and developments in the EU. In the sense of the theory and practical implication of political modification of markets.

In the perspective of the the 'proEU' wing in the classic liberal economy, goods and services are provided and prices set by free bargaining. So in Europe there should be no restrictions to this principle, for instance by the national isolationalism of for instance the Populists, nationalists and socialists (Wilders PVV, the Socialist party and other Euro sceptic parties) and the Euroscepsis/anti-Europeanism of the Brits. The Modern economies give massive powers to large business corporations to bias this process, and there arise 'countervailing' powers in the form of trade unions, citizens' organizations, Competition regulators (in *Poland and in the **Netherlands we have them) and so on, to offset business's excessive advantage.

My fellow compatriots from the 'proEU' wing presently see the role of the Netherlands in the EU as a constructive partner to other European countries. They know that the Netherlands is dependent on a prosporous, free, tolerant and thus open EU. Freedom of movement, trade, investment, production, distribution, transport, scientific exchange, cooperation is in the interest of all Europeans in their eyes. The Dutch interest lies in the further developoment of the Union, expanding markets. So economical growth, development and prosperity of Central- and Eastern-European and Southern-European nations is in the interest of Dutch companies, factories, banks and inssurance companies, investors, shareholders, stakeholders, governments and people from the EU countries. If the Central- and Eastern-European countries produce a lot of good and competitive products, these products have to be sold, transported, marketed, distributed, traded and registered. The West-Europeans buy these goods too and these products have to be transported to other continents. Often they pass through the Netherlands by train, truck (highway), boat (waterway Raw material transport) or airplane. All Europeans benefit from eachothers economical growth, progress and niche markets. If Poland has the only growing economy for to long this would not be good, because other European markets with non growth or a shrinking economy have a decreasing consumption.

Unfortunately in the present situation the European political system, the European markets and the European cooperation is fragile and unstable. The 'proEU' wing is in favor of a strong European democracy, and so much influence and a monitoring role of the European parliament, which should control the European commission and the European president thoroughly. In their eyes the European legislation and institutions operate well. They know that the Dutch influence in the European democracy is limited, but they believe in the good will and cooperation in the European parties of their political direction.

Cheers,
Pieter

*In Poland:
www.uokik.gov.pl/history.php
pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urząd_Ochrony_Konkurencji_i_Konsumentów

**In the Netherlands
www.nma.nl/en/default.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Competition_Authority

[pjotr]

Competition regulator

A competition regulator is a government agency, typically a statutory authority, sometimes called an economic regulator, which regulates and enforces competition laws, and may sometimes also enforce consumer protection laws. In addition to such agencies there is often another body responsible for formulating competition policy.
Many nations implement competition laws, and there is general agreement on acceptable standards of behavior. The degree to which countries enforce their competition policy varies substantially.
Competition regulators may also regulate certain aspects of mergers and acquisitions and business alliances and regulate or prohibit cartels and monopolies. Other government agencies may have responsibilities in relation to aspects of competition law which affect companies (e.g. the registrar of companies).
Regulators may form supranational or international alliances like the ECA (European Competition Authorities), the ICN (International Competition Network), and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).



Directorate-General for Competition (European Commission)

The Directorate-General for Competition (COMP) is a Directorate-General of the European Commission, located in Brussels, Belgium. The DG Competition is responsible for establishing and implementing a coherent competition policy for the European Union. The DG Competition has a dual role in antitrust enforcement: an investigative role and a decision-making role. This duality of roles has been criticized in the past. In response to such criticism, DG Competition has implemented a number of internal reforms in order to guarantee parties' due process rights.
DG Competition is also considered to be one of the most sophisticated antitrust enforcers in the world, alongside the US agencies (the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice).
The DG Competition policy areas include the following:
antitrust (agreements prohibited under the Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty)
mergers (Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (The "Implementing Regulation") and its annexes (Form CO, Short Form CO and Form RS))
liberalisation (Articles 3 and 86 of the EC treaty)
state aid - ensuring that government interventions do not distort competition and intra-community trade (Article 87 of the EC Treaty).
international cooperation
The current Commissioner responsible for Competition Policy within the European Commission is Joaquín Almunia.

ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/index_en.htm

[tufta]

Mar 11, 2012 11:55:12 GMT 1 pjotr said:

Mar 5, 2012 20:54:25 GMT 1 tufta said:

Pjotr, I wonder how do you and your fellow compatriots (from the 'proEU' wing) presently see the role of Netherland in the EU. And what is the general position of your country, does it oppose the Berlin-Paris as represented by Mekozy or just uses the present status quo to multiply own well-being and wealth?

Tufta,

The role of the Netherlands in the EU is that of a pragmatic negociator, mediator, a sensible force who is aware of the political, diplomatic, financial-economical and monetarian circumstances and developments in the EU. In the sense of the theory and practical implication of political modification of markets.

In the perspective of the the 'proEU' wing in the classic liberal economy, goods and services are provided and prices set by free bargaining. So in Europe there should be no restrictions to this principle, for instance by the national isolationalism of for instance the Populists, nationalists and socialists (Wilders PVV, the Socialist party and other Euro sceptic parties) and the Euroscepsis/anti-Europeanism of the Brits. The Modern economies give massive powers to large business corporations to bias this process, and there arise 'countervailing' powers in the form of trade unions, citizens' organizations, Competition regulators (in *Poland and in the **Netherlands we have them) and so on, to offset business's excessive advantage.

My fellow compatriots from the 'proEU' wing presently see the role of the Netherlands in the EU as a constructive partner to other European countries. They know that the Netherlands is dependent on a prosporous, free, tolerant and thus open EU. Freedom of movement, trade, investment, production, distribution, transport, scientific exchange, cooperation is in the interest of all Europeans in their eyes. The Dutch interest lies in the further developoment of the Union, expanding markets. So economical growth, development and prosperity of Central- and Eastern-European and Southern-European nations is in the interest of Dutch companies, factories, banks and inssurance companies, investors, shareholders, stakeholders, governments and people from the EU countries. If the Central- and Eastern-European countries produce a lot of good and competitive products, these products have to be sold, transported, marketed, distributed, traded and registered. The West-Europeans buy these goods too and these products have to be transported to other continents. Often they pass through the Netherlands by train, truck (highway), boat (waterway Raw material transport) or airplane. All Europeans benefit from eachothers economical growth, progress and niche markets. If Poland has the only growing economy for to long this would not be good, because other European markets with non growth or a shrinking economy have a decreasing consumption.

Unfortunately in the present situation the European political system, the European markets and the European cooperation is fragile and unstable. The 'proEU' wing is in favor of a strong European democracy, and so much influence and a monitoring role of the European parliament, which should control the European commission and the European president thoroughly. In their eyes the European legislation and institutions operate well. They know that the Dutch influence in the European democracy is limited, but they believe in the good will and cooperation in the European parties of their political direction.

Cheers,
Pieter

*In Poland:
www.uokik.gov.pl/history.php
pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urząd_Ochrony_Konkurencji_i_Konsumentów

**In the Netherlands
www.nma.nl/en/default.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Competition_Authority

Pjotr, of course you are right, especially if we operate in the paradigm of 'united, borderless EU', which it is not yet. What I was curious about, perhaps overly, is the simple meaning of the statement: >we [Durch] look carefully at the axis Berlin-Paris, and sometimes dislike the powermachine what is behind that<. What do you exactly mean by that? How are you looking carefully at the B-P axis. And what do you dislike about that powermachine. That is what I meant.

Cheers
Tufta

[pjotr]

Mar 11, 2012 21:48:14 GMT 1 tufta said:

Mar 11, 2012 11:55:12 GMT 1 pjotr said:

Tufta,

The role of the Netherlands in the EU is that of a pragmatic negociator, mediator, a sensible force who is aware of the political, diplomatic, financial-economical and monetarian circumstances and developments in the EU. In the sense of the theory and practical implication of political modification of markets.

In the perspective of the the 'proEU' wing in the classic liberal economy, goods and services are provided and prices set by free bargaining. So in Europe there should be no restrictions to this principle, for instance by the national isolationalism of for instance the Populists, nationalists and socialists (Wilders PVV, the Socialist party and other Euro sceptic parties) and the Euroscepsis/anti-Europeanism of the Brits. The Modern economies give massive powers to large business corporations to bias this process, and there arise 'countervailing' powers in the form of trade unions, citizens' organizations, Competition regulators (in *Poland and in the **Netherlands we have them) and so on, to offset business's excessive advantage.

My fellow compatriots from the 'proEU' wing presently see the role of the Netherlands in the EU as a constructive partner to other European countries. They know that the Netherlands is dependent on a prosporous, free, tolerant and thus open EU. Freedom of movement, trade, investment, production, distribution, transport, scientific exchange, cooperation is in the interest of all Europeans in their eyes. The Dutch interest lies in the further developoment of the Union, expanding markets. So economical growth, development and prosperity of Central- and Eastern-European and Southern-European nations is in the interest of Dutch companies, factories, banks and inssurance companies, investors, shareholders, stakeholders, governments and people from the EU countries. If the Central- and Eastern-European countries produce a lot of good and competitive products, these products have to be sold, transported, marketed, distributed, traded and registered. The West-Europeans buy these goods too and these products have to be transported to other continents. Often they pass through the Netherlands by train, truck (highway), boat (waterway Raw material transport) or airplane. All Europeans benefit from eachothers economical growth, progress and niche markets. If Poland has the only growing economy for to long this would not be good, because other European markets with non growth or a shrinking economy have a decreasing consumption.

Unfortunately in the present situation the European political system, the European markets and the European cooperation is fragile and unstable. The 'proEU' wing is in favor of a strong European democracy, and so much influence and a monitoring role of the European parliament, which should control the European commission and the European president thoroughly. In their eyes the European legislation and institutions operate well. They know that the Dutch influence in the European democracy is limited, but they believe in the good will and cooperation in the European parties of their political direction.

Cheers,
Pieter

*In Poland:
www.uokik.gov.pl/history.php
pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urząd_Ochrony_Konkurencji_i_Konsumentów

**In the Netherlands
www.nma.nl/en/default.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Competition_Authority

Pjotr, of course you are right, especially if we operate in the paradigm of 'united, borderless EU', which it is not yet. What I was curious about, perhaps overly, is the simple meaning of the statement: >we [Dutch] look carefully at the axis Berlin-Paris, and sometimes dislike the powermachine what is behind that<. What do you exactly mean by that? How are you looking carefully at the B-P axis. And what do you dislike about that powermachine. That is what I meant.

Cheers
Tufta

Tufta,

Okay, how do I describe this well. There are differant layers in my answer to this question. First there is obviously the historical context, secondly there is the political -geopolitical/Realpolitik- context and thirdly the financial-economical context.

History
When we take a deeper look at history then we see a different political history and tradition of rule between the Netherlands and France. France is a centralistic power with a tradition of a lot of government influence, where in the Netherlands there was always decentralized power and autonomy of the regions. In the same time looking at Germany, Germany due to the occupation has left deep scarves in the Dutch society (like in Poland), and unlike realistic and pragmatic and sensible Poland who actually want a powerful and decisive role of Germany in the EU, the Dutch often have a problem with to much power and influence with large foreign powers. Geographically we are driven in a North-Western corner of Europe and surrounded by the Germans, French and Brits. With all three countries we fought wars in the past. That is over now, but in the psyche of the Dutch -irrational or not- there is always a resistance or irritation about to much influence from the Germans and the French (Berlin-Paris axis) or/and the Brussels bureaucracy as they call it overhere. Indirectly the Dutch think ofcourse that Brussels is controled or monitored by the Germans and French. In that view the European parliament is a nice fig leaf for the camoeflaged power of the Germans and French who dominate President of the European Commission José Manuel Durão Barroso, the European commission and The President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy.

Those Dutch who fear, dislike or distrust the Berlin-Paris axis fear that Merkel and Sarkozy are only interested in their own national interests, the German-French market and cooperation (they have a lot to gain from eachother. There is a lot of border crossing economical activity. Joint Ventures and import and export between the two nations) and the "secret" agenda's of the two nations. Expressed in German those Dutch sceptic and against the Berlin-Paris axis fear a German-French "alleingang" (solo effort) in the Union.

As a result of the global financial crisis that came to a head in September 2008, Nicolas Sarkozy has returned to the state interventionism of his predecessors, declaring that "laissez-faire capitalism is over" and denouncing the "dictatorship of the market". Confronted with the suggestion that he had become a socialist, he responded: "Have I become socialist? Perhaps." He has also pledged to create 100,000 state-subsidised jobs. This reversion to *dirigisme is seen as an attempt to stem the growing popularity of revolutionary socialist leader Olivier Besancenot.

* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme

Merkel and Sarkozy are leaders of large Continental European countries, who stand farther away from Great-Britain, the USA than the Netherlands does. Surely in the second half of the 20th century the Netherlands became very Transatlantic. We are one of the most Americanised countries in Europe and next to that there is a direct British influence via sea connections, the Channel Tunnel and the very short connection between Schiphol Airport -Amsterdam and Heathrow in London. There are a lot of Dutch bankers, employees and yuppies in the financial district of London. A to continental, Rhineland model of economy course of the European Union under influence of the Germans and the French is not in the Dutch interest. I think we are more Anglo-saxon in our shareholders oriented economy, while France and Germany are more stakeholder oriented.

The Dutch authorities (government and coalition parties), employers and a large percentage of the voters/population want less government influence. That means a smaller government, cut backs, reforms, more privatizations and private ownership. In France we see a growing influence of the government, and also a desire of stronger European institutions and a European Union modelled after the France example. This is important, these cultural, political and social-economical and financial differances between the French and the Dutch are deep. The Dutch who are closely linked to Germany economically, fear that a to close German-French cooperation might harm the interests of the Anglophile Transatlantic Dutch.

I hope that I described it well. In the same time I have to be honest. A lot of Dutch people aren't interested in Europe, European elections or the Berlin-Paris axis. many of them might not be aware of that axis, because they only see the European Union as one multi-lateral identity. The political aware and political active Dutch who are sceptic about the German-French cooperation are both anti-European as the 'proEU' wing of the Centre-left and centre-right parties.

Cheers,
Pieter

P.S.- The French have their secular revolutionairy identity of laïcité, in the Netherlands there is a strong counterveiling power to that, eventhough we are secularised too. The anti-revolutionairy Calvinist tradition and the anti-socialist Roman Catholic heritage.

The Anti Revolutionary protestant direction within the Dutch christian democracy is directed agains the values of the French revolution: egalité, fraternité et liberté. Their motto was and is "God, the Netherlands, and the House of Orange".

[tufta]

Mar 12, 2012 0:08:50 GMT 1 pjotr said:

I hope that I described it well.

Yes and thank you Pjotr. You have described it perfectly and I got your point very well. But the further I get in understanding the Netherlands, the more questions arise. The present system of power balance in EU was built for at least the last twenty years (very modestly counting from German re-unification), and culminated with the birth of 'Merkozy' phenomenon. You have cited here Spiegel article about Habermas calling it 'postdemocracy'. Now I will say some not that nice things about 'old- EU', so promise you don't take it personally, as it is not just about the Netherlands. Why we, in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), only now hear the complains about Germans and French and their role in the EU. As to the French – it should have been clear since the VERY beginning that they are 'European' only as long they are playing the first fiddle on the continent. So noone should be now astonished they grow EU-skeptical since enlargement of the EU into other parts of the CEE besides former GDR made Germany so privilged that the whole balance of power in the Berlin-Paris axis went east. This new power balance is not the result of some secret actions and badwill, it is a simple reaction to reality: which is/was full agreement of your cuntry, Belgium, Italians (who now cry blue murder the loudest), Spaniards and so on and on. For many years NOONE in EU ever successfully opposed Germany and France whatever they decided in really important matters. Nature knows no void, so the empty niche of power was quickly colonized. Colonized even in spite of Berlin reluctance to take that power, to lead, to take responsibiliy, which is a reaction of theirs to WWII (still!). Please note that Netherlands is one of the countries which especially went along the conformist course. One might get an impression that for the Netherlands and others Poland is only good as long as it forms/formed some counterbalance to Germany, due Dutch scars from the war. While Poland's young generation has absolutely no scars, on one hand they see Germany as it is today, and on the other they know that Poland, their forefathers in the past (70 years ago!) fought bravely against Germans when they went beserk and did not surrender after bombing down one city. It is not just Netherlands, as I have said. Same goes for France and some other nations. Why then, once again, only now we hear complains about Berlin and Paris pulling the strings, when the balance of power went east and Berlin is more often than not supported by 'new Poland' which finally grew back into a position of one of the major political and economical forces in Europe, and one which is not in 'automatic' opposition to Germany.

[pjotr]

Mar 12, 2012 12:05:11 GMT 1 tufta said:

Mar 12, 2012 0:08:50 GMT 1 pjotr said:

I hope that I described it well.

Yes and thank you Pjotr. You have described it perfectly and I got your point very well. But the further I get in understanding the Netherlands, the more questions arise. The present system of power balance in EU was built for at least the last twenty years (very modestly counting from German re-unification), and culminated with the birth of 'Merkozy' phenomenon. You have cited here Spiegel article about Habermas calling it 'postdemocracy'. Now I will say some not that nice things about 'old- EU', so promise you don't take it personally, as it is not just about the Netherlands. Why we, in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), only now hear the complains about Germans and French and their role in the EU. As to the French – it should have been clear since the VERY beginning that they are 'European' only as long they are playing the first fiddle on the continent. So noone should be now astonished they grow EU-skeptical since enlargement of the EU into other parts of the CEE besides former GDR made Germany so privilged that the whole balance of power in the Berlin-Paris axis went east. This new power balance is not the result of some secret actions and badwill, it is a simple reaction to reality: which is/was full agreement of your cuntry, Belgium, Italians (who now cry blue murder the loudest), Spaniards and so on and on. For many years NOONE in EU ever successfully opposed Germany and France whatever they decided in really important matters. Nature knows no void, so the empty niche of power was quickly colonized. Colonized even in spite of Berlin reluctance to take that power, to lead, to take responsibiliy, which is a reaction of theirs to WWII (still!). Please note that Netherlands is one of the countries which especially went along the conformist course. One might get an impression that for the Netherlands and others Poland is only good as long as it forms/formed some counterbalance to Germany, due Dutch scars from the war. While Poland's young generation has absolutely no scars, on one hand they see Germany as it is today, and on the other they know that Poland, their forefathers in the past (70 years ago!) fought bravely against Germans when they went beserk and did not surrender after bombing down one city. It is not just Netherlands, as I have said. Same goes for France and some other nations. Why then, once again, only now we hear complains about Berlin and Paris pulling the strings, when the balance of power went east and Berlin is more often than not supported by 'new Poland' which finally grew back into a position of one of the major political and economical forces in Europe, and one which is not in 'automatic' opposition to Germany.

Tufta,

Well said, and a good combination of your rational objective knowledge and information about the European reality and add to that your personal opinion merged with that.

You are absolutely right when you point at the hypocritical and opportunistic stance of the Netherlands today and in the past. We are part of the club since the beginning of the European Coal and Steel Community (1952–2002) and the European Economic Community (1958–1993). In the European Union and the previous organisations I mentioned here above there were always differances between the national and mutual interests of the member states. Often there also were special relationships between leaders. Thye liked eachother or not. The Netherlands for decades was a Pro-European country and an important partner which was closely linked to Germany due to the Mark-Gulden currency connection before the Euro came to existance. France always had a solo course in the EU, due to it's pigheaded Gaullism.

German Gaullism

The expression Gaullist has also been used in the politics of the Federal Republic of Germany (West-Germany) in the 1950s and 1960s. In the governing Christian Democratic party some wanted to strengthen the ties with the United States, the Atlantiker (Atlanticians), others wanted to build up a European counterweight, with the help of France, the Gaullists.
The most notable Gaullist was chancellor Konrad Adenauer, an outstanding Atlantiker his minister of foreign affairs, Schröder. A typical Atlantiker was Protestant and believed in free market economy, a typical Gaullist was Catholic and tended toward Rhine Capitalism with its more regulated markets and state intervention.
A problem to the Gaullists has been that their concept of foreign relationships was based on a strong European integration, which needed support from France. French president Charles de Gaulle actually was reluctant to give more power to European institutions and advocated instead a less tight Europe of the nations.
After de Gaulle's retreat in 1969 and the end of Christian Democratic government in Germany the same year, the distinction lost its prominence. Anyway, even Gaullists always believed that the relationship to the United States was in general the most important.

France in the EEC

Despite its success in the war, Britain experienced a difficult time in the post war world. While France and other European countries were enjoying booming economies, Britain experienced high inflation, stagnant growth and poor labour relations. A number of her important colonial possessions - not least India and Palestine - quickly gained independence, and following the Suez Crisis, where Britain and France unsuccessfully sought to prevent the Egyptians from nationalising the Suez Canal, Britain struggled to adjust to its reduced world position. The U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson commented that Britain had "lost an empire and had not yet found a role".

France meanwhile, experiencing the disintegration of her own empire and severe problems in Algeria, turned towards Europe after Suez, and to Germany in particular. In the years after, the economies of both nations came together and they became leading partners in the drive towards European unity.
One of the conditions of Marshall Aid was that the nation’s leaders must get together to co-ordinate economic efforts and to pool the supply of raw materials. By far the most critical commodities in driving growth were coal and steel. France assumed it would receive large amounts of high quality German coal from the Ruhr as reparations for the war, but America refused to allow this, fearing it could lead to a repeat of the renewed bitterness after the Treaty of Versailles which partly caused World War II.

Under the inspiration of the French statesmen Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, together with the German leader Konrad Adenauer, the rift between the two nations had begun to heal and along with Italy and the Benelux countries, they formed the European Coal and Steel Community, which following the Treaty of Rome of 1957 became the European Economic Community, also known as the Common Market, beginning around the same time as de Gaulle's presidency. Though he had not been instrumental in setting up the new organisation, de Gaulle spoke enthusiastically of his vision of "an imposing confederation" of European states and of formulating a common European foreign policy.


De Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer

De Gaulle, who in spite of recent history admired Germany and spoke excellent German in contrast to his poor, mumbling English, established a good relationship with the ageing West Germany Chancellor Konrad Adenauer - culminating in the Elysee Treaty in 1963 - and in the first few years of the Common Market, France's industrial exports to the other five members tripled and its farm export almost quadrupled. The franc became a solid, stable currency for the first time in half a century, and the economy mostly boomed. Adenauer however, all too aware of the importance of American support in Europe, gently distanced himself from the general’s more extreme ideas, wanting no suggestion that any new European community would in any sense challenge or set itself at odds with the U.S. In Adenauer's eyes, the support of the U.S. was more important than any question of European prestige. Adenauer was also anxious to reassure Britain that nothing was being done behind her back and was quick to inform British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan of any new developments.
Great Britain initially declined to join the Common Market, preferring to remain with another organisation known as the European Free Trade Area, mostly consisting of the northern European countries and Portugal. By the late nineteen fifties German and French living standards began to exceed those in Britain, and the government of Harold Macmillan, realising that the EEC was a stronger trading bloc than EFTA, began negotiations to join.
De Gaulle vetoed the British application to join the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1963, famously uttering the single word 'non' into the television cameras at the critical moment, a statement used to sum up French opposition and belligerence towards Britain for many years afterwards. Macmillan said afterwards that he always believed that de Gaulle would prevent Britain joining, but thought he would do it quietly, behind the scenes. He later complained privately that "all our plans are in tatters".

One reason given for de Gaulle's refusal was the recent American agreement to supply Britain with the Skybolt nuclear missile. He did it, he said, because he thought the United Kingdom lacked the necessary political will to be part of a strong Europe. He further saw Britain as a "Trojan Horse" for the USA. He maintained there were incompatibilities between continental European and British economic interests. In addition, he demanded that the United Kingdom accept all the conditions laid down by the six existing members of the EEC (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands) and revoke its commitments to countries within its own free trade area (which France had not done with its own). He supported a deepening and an acceleration of common market integration rather than an expansion.
However, in this latter respect, a detailed study of the formative years of the EEC argues that the defence of French economic interests, especially in agriculture, in fact played a more dominant role in determining de Gaulle's stance towards British entry than the various political and foreign policy considerations that have often been cited. The General's attitude was also influenced by resentments which had come about during his exile in Britain during the Second World War.
Dean Acheson believed that Britain made a grave error in not signing up to the European idea right from the start, and that they continued to suffer the political consequences for at least two decades afterwards. However he also stated his belief that de Gaulle used the 'Common Market' (as it was then termed) as an "exclusionary device to direct European trade towards the interest of France and against that of the United states, Britain and other countries."
Claiming continental European solidarity, de Gaulle again rejected British entry when they next applied to join the community in December 1967 under the Labour leadership of Harold Wilson. During negotiations, de Gaulle chided Britain for relying too much on the Americans, saying that sooner or later they would always do what was in their best interests. Wilson said he then gently raised the spectre of the threat of a newly powerful Germany as a result of the EEC, which de Gaulle agreed was a risk. The veto on British entry made de Gaulle unpopular in Ireland since it was clear that for economic reasons Ireland would be excluded from the EEC as long as Britain remained outside.
After de Gaulle left office the United Kingdom applied again and finally became a member of the EEC in January 1973. Britain had to give up its exclusive rights to the fishing grounds around its island however, the catch being pooled with other nations as part of the Common Fisheries Policy. It also caused great anger in Australia and New Zealand, who lost important trading markets, among them exports of lamb. Britain continued to feel it received a poor deal from Europe for many years, however.

pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europejska_Wspólnota_Węgla_i_Stali
pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wspólnota_Europejska
pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unia_Europejska

[pjotr]

Dutch foreign relations

Historically the Dutch foreign policy was characterised by neutrality, since the Second World War the Netherlands became a member of a large number of international organisations, most prominently the UN, NATO and the EU. The Dutch economy is very open and relies on international trade.
During and after its golden age, the Dutch built up a commercial and colonial empire, which fell apart quickly after the Second World War; the historical ties inherited from its colonial past still influence the foreign relations of the Netherlands.

The foreign policy of the Netherlands is based on four basic commitments: to the Atlantic cooperation, to European integration, to international development and to international law. While historically the Netherlands was a neutral state, since the second World War the Netherlands became a member of a large number of international organisations. One of the more controversial international issues surrounding the Netherlands is its liberal policy towards soft drugs and position of the Netherlands as one of the major exporters of hard drugs. During and after its golden age, the Dutch built up a commercial and colonial empire, which fell apart quickly after the Second World War; the historical ties inherited from its colonial past still influence the foreign relations of the Netherlands.

Policy

The Dutch Government conducted a review of foreign policy main themes, organization, and funding in 1995. The document "The Foreign Policy of the Netherlands: A Review" outlined the new direction of Dutch foreign policy. The Netherlands prioritizes enhancing European integration, maintaining relations with neighboring states, ensuring European security and stability (mainly through the mechanism of NATO and emphasizing the important role the United States plays in the security of Europe), and participating in conflict management and peacekeeping missions. The foreign policy review also resulted in the reorganization of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Through the creation of regional departments, the Ministry coordinates tasks previously divided among the international cooperation, foreign affairs, and economic affairs sections.

Atlantic cooperation

Dutch security policy is based primarily on membership in NATO, which the Netherlands co-founded in 1949. Because of Dutch participation in NATO nuclear weapons are believed to be stationed in the Netherlands, see possible nuclear weapons in the Netherlands.
The Dutch also pursue defense cooperation within Europe, both multilaterally - in the context of the Western European Union and the European Security and Defence Policy of the EU - and bilaterally, as in the German-Netherlands Corps. In recent years, the Dutch have become significant contributors to UN peacekeeping efforts around the world as well as to the Stabililzation Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (SFOR) in Bosnia.

European integration

The Dutch have been strong advocates of European integration, and most aspects of their foreign, economic, and trade policies are coordinated through the European Union (EU). The Netherlands' postwar customs union with Belgium and Luxembourg (the Benelux group) paved the way for the formation of the European Community (precursor to the EU), of which the Netherlands was a founding member. Likewise, the Benelux abolition of internal border controls was a model for the wider Schengen Accord, which today has 29 European signatories (including the Netherlands) pledged to common visa policies and free movement of people across common borders.
The Dutch stood at the cradle of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and have been the architects of the Treaty of Amsterdam concluded in 1998. The Dutch have thus played an important role in European political and monetary integration; indeed, until the year 2003, Dutchman Wim Duisenberg headed the European Central Bank. In addition, Dutch financial minister Gerrit Zalm was the main critic of the violation of the Stability and Growth Pact by France and Germany in 2004 and 2005.

International organisations

As a relatively small country, the Netherlands generally pursues its foreign policy interests within the framework of multilateral organizations. The Netherlands is an active and responsible participant in the United Nations system as well as other multilateral organizations such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), World Trade Organization (WTO), and International Monetary Fund.
The Netherlands is one of the founding members of what today is the European Union. It was one of the first countries to start European integration, through the Benelux in 1944 and the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952. Being a small country with a history of neutrality it was the host country for the important Maastricht Treaty and Amsterdam Treaty and is the seat of the International Court of Justice.

The Polish-Dutch trade exchange 2004 - 2009

According to Polish statistical data for the year 2009 The Netherlands - in terms of the value of the turnover - was 8th trade partner of Poland in general and 6th trade partner of Poland among the EU Member States.

2nd Polish business Forum in the Netherlands

Trade and Investment Promotion Section of the Embassy of the Republic of Poland together with the Association of Polish-Dutch Entrepreneurs (VPNO - Vereniging voor Pools- Nederlandse Ondernemers www.vpno.nl/ ) organized the second edition of the Polish Business Forum in the Netherlands which took place on the 1st of October 2011 in the Polish regional restaurant Klein ('little') Zakopane in Giesbeek, close to Arnhem.



Same as last year, the event attracted approximately 200 Polish entrepreneurs and businesspeople. The goal of the 2nd Polish Business Forum was to highlight the important role that Polish entrepreneurs play in the Dutch market and to draw public attention to their positive impact on the development of bilateral economic relations between Poland and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The purpose of the 2nd Forum was also to emphasize our presence in the EU market and to create a positive image of Poles in the Netherlands. This is related to one of the economic priorities of Polish Presidency, namely to support the functioning of the internal market of the European Union, which includes supporting entrepreneurship and activities of SMEs. Guests of honor during the event were His Excellency Ambassador Janusz Stańczyk and Deputy Minister of Economy, Mr. Rafał Baniak. The 2nd Polish Business Forum was moderated by Mrs. Anna Popek, Polish celebrity and a well-known TV presenter (TVP2).


The Polish ambassador in the Netherlands Janusz Stańczyk


The Polish Deputy Minister of Economy, Mr. Rafał Baniak

The aim of annual Polish Business Forum is to build a platform for dialogue for Polish entrepreneurs to meet and network with like-mined people, thereby stimulating the process of internationalization and unification of Polish companies in the Netherlands. The Trade and Investment Promotion Section strongly encourages building links and connections among Poles in the Netherlands. Together with VPNO, we stimulate the long-term process of formation of a consolidated network of Dutch-based Polish entrepreneurs. VPNO is committed to the mission of serving the needs of the ever-growing population of Polish entrepreneurs in the Netherlands and providing a respected representation of its members towards other organizations and local authorities.


The Polish TV presenter Anna Popek of TVP2 in Giesbeek in the Netherlands.

[pjotr]

Sarkozy threatens to pull France from Europe visa-free zone

AFPBy Rory Mulholland | AFP – 17 hours ago


France's President and candidate for the upcoming re-election, Nicolas Sarkozy delivers his speech during an election meeting in Villepinte, north of Paris, France, Sunday March 11, 2012. (AP Photo/Francois Mori)

President Nicolas Sarkozy threatened in a key election rally Sunday to pull France out of Europe's 26-nation visa free zone unless the European Union does more to keep out illegal immigrants.

Sarkozy, who this week said France had too many foreigners, made the threat at a mass meeting which he hopes will turn the tide against front-running Socialist Francois Hollande with just 42 days to go before election day.


The French socialist leader Francois Hollande

The so-called Schengen passport-free zone must urgently be overhauled to fight the flow of illegal immigration, said the right-wing leader, returning to a constant theme in his bid for five more years at the Elysee palace.


The Elysée Palace

To chants of "Nicolas, president!" from the tens of thousands in the flag-waving audience, Sarkozy said unchecked immigration would put extra strain on social safety nets for Europe's poorest.

"In the coming 12 months, (if) there is no serious progress towards this (reforming Schengen), France would then suspend its participation in the Schengen accords until negotiations conclude," he declared.

The Schengen area is home to 400 million Europeans who can cross borders without a passport, and once inside the area illegal immigrants can theoretically move freely between the participating states.


A monument to the Agreement in Schengen, Luxembourg

Sarkozy accuses some EU states of having lax border controls that let in illegals who may later turn up in France.

Sarkozy's UMP party chartered TGV high-speed trains and fleets of buses to ferry supporters from across France for the rally in a cavernous exhibition hall in Villepinte, near Paris Charles de Gaulle airport.

Sarkozy also said he wanted the EU to introduce a "Buy European Act" based on a US measure that obliges the state to use domestically produced products in public contracts.

If the European Union did not do this within a year, he would, if re-elected in the two-round vote in April and May, implement a unilateral "Buy French" law, he said.

"I want a Europe that protects its citizens. I no longer want this savage competition," he told the crowd, which the UMP estimated at 70,000. He rejected the idea of "a Europe that opens up its markets when others do not", he said.

"I have lost none of my will to act, my will to make things change, my belief in the genius of France," he insisted.

Sarkozy produced few surprises, sticking to familiar themes such as immigration and portraying himself as the steady captain steering France through the economic storm.

He got the loudest cheer of the rally when he reminded his supporters he had banned Islamic veils in France and was opposed to having special Islamic halal meals in school canteens.

"It was to give back to women control of their destiny that we wanted to ban the burqa...," he told the crowd.


A veiled woman outside a courthouse in Paris

Sarkozy a week ago picked up on a debate about halal meat launched by Le Pen, declaring that its spread was a major problem for the French.

But his critics have accused him of fishing for support from voters who lean towards the National Front, the anti-immigrant, anti-EU party led by Marine Le Pen, who polls put in third place in the presidential race.


Marine Le Pen could beat Nicolas Sarkozy in the first round of the presidential election Photo: AFP/GETTY

Hollande, who has never held a ministerial post and whose ex-partner Segolene Royal lost to Sarkozy in 2007, this week pressed home his attacks on his rival's record in five years at the Elysee palace.


Segolene Royal, socialist candidate for the presidential elections in 2007

He mocked Sarkozy's plan to slap a new tax on the profits of listed companies. The president said Tuesday it would bring in up to three billion euros ($3.9 billion) a year to help cut the public deficit.

An OpinionWay-Fiducial opinion poll on Thursday forecast that Hollande would take 29 percent of the vote in the first round, with Sarkozy at 26 percent and Le Pen third at 17 percent.

Hollande, who has enjoyed a clear lead for five months, would romp home in the second round with 56 percent, well ahead of Sarkozy at 44 percent, the poll said.

Among the celebrities at the rally were actress Emmanuelle Seigner, wife of Roman Polanski, and actor Gerard Depardieu.


Emmanuelle Seigner


Gerard Depardieu

Depardieu described the president as frank and honest and said that since Sarkozy had been in power, "I only hear bad things about this man who only does good".

The Villepinte rally came just days after the 56-year-old Sarkozy said he would quit politics for good if not re-elected.

[pjotr]

EU warns the Netherlands to keep to EU budget deficit rules

Friday 02 March 2012

Countries such as the Netherlands must ensure they meet EU monetary union rules or they will be punished by the financial markets, European president Herman Van Rompuy said at the end of a two-day summit in Brussels on Friday.


European president Herman Van Rompuy

Van Rompuy was commenting on questions about the latest 'dramatic' economic forecasts for the Netherlands and Spain. Although the two countries are not in a similar position, they must all 'keep their budgets on track', the president said.

On Thursday, new figures from the goverment's macro-economic forecaster said the Dutch budget deficit will reach 4.5% next year, well above the 3% permitted under eurozone rules.

Germany

German chancellor Angela Merkel also emphasised the need for budgetary discipline, the Financieele Dagblad said.

Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte said the Netherlands would meet its requirements but pointed out there is a little room to manoeuvre in the rules, according to news agency ANP. It is up to the European Commission to decide if the Netherlands has met its obligations or not, the prime minister said.


The Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte and the German chancellor Angela Merkel

However, finance minister Jan Kees de Jager said it is paramount that the Netherlands meets the targets. 'I am not going to beg Brussels for clemency,' the minister said.

Next week, ministers begin talks on how to reduce spending by at least €9bn in order to reduce the budget deficit. Some estimates say the savings package will need to total €12bn.


Dutch finance minister Jan Kees de Jager

Salary freeze

The Telegraaf says the salaries of all civil servants are set to be frozen for a further period in order to help the government meet eurozone monetary union rules.

One source told the paper the pay freeze would be 'unavoidable' if the Netherlands is to find savings of at least €9bn. A 2.5 year pay freeze would generate €2.5bn, the paper said.

A freeze in social security benefits and pensions would generate a further €2.7bn.

[pjotr]

European integration comes in many flavours

Published on : 13 March 2012 - 1:47pm | By Johan van der Tol

The European Union has clear agreements about immigration, but the integration of those immigrants is a different kettle of fish. Every EU country has its own approach and these often run counter to the European guidelines about respecting the specific identity of the immigrant.

The Netherlands has a precise picture of the integration of newcomers in Dutch society - but it's on paper only, according to a report on integration in Europe by the Institute for Social Research (SCP). The researchers are critical of the practical implementation of the plans, particularly the stringent acculturation demands made on immigrants.

Rob Bijl, one of the authors of the report: “I sometimes get the feeling that people from other countries have to meet tougher standards than Dutch people.”

Facing the facts

Last year the EU member states signed the European Agenda for Integration, the central tenet of which states that integration is a two-way process of rights and duties on the part of both the immigrant and the host society involving mutual respect for cultural differences. But, say SCP researchers, “Current practice in many EU countries bears little relation to this.”

For a long time, countries like the Netherlands and Germany did not face up to the fact that they had become popular immigration destinations, says Bijl.

“For years Germany had the largest number of immigrants in the world after the United States. Until the end of the 20th century they continued to insist they were not an immigration destination. We’re talking about millions of people, far more than in the Netherlands. Yet they still managed to convince themselves that the migrant workers would all return home one day.”

As long as everyone assumed the immigrants were only staying temporarily, there was no need to do anything about integration.

No experience
By now most European countries have accepted that most of the immigrants are there to stay, but they’re still busy looking the other way.

“A large part of the Italian economy depends on ‘undocumented’ illegal immigrants. Many domestic workers, a big sector in Italy, are migrants from Eastern Europe and former Yugoslavia. Every Italian is perfectly well aware that these people are all going to stay in Italy, even if it is illegal.”

Italy is not equipped to deal with the recent influx of immigrants from Africa and from countries like Albania - partly because the country has no experience with immigration from former colonies like the Netherlands or Great Britain. But also because the government just isn't big enough to take it on, says Hans Entzinger, Professor of Integration and Migration Studies at Rotterdam’s Erasmus University.

“Governments generally tend to be a bit smaller in southern European countries, so there are fewer opportunities to develop integration policies. In a country like Italy, families do a lot of the welfare work done by the government in the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries.”

Movements
Rob Bijl and Professor Entzinger argue that historical and cultural differences across the EU make it difficult or even impossible to agree on a European integration policy. However, a number of basic principles have existed for a few years, such as equal access to work, education, healthcare and housing for migrants.

Streamlining is important in Europe, though, if only to ensure that countries faced with a wave of immigration can learn from each other. Most countries in Eastern Europe do not have an integration policy because they hardly have any immigrants. Movements of people can change rapidly, however, as the recent histories of Ireland and Spain demonstrate - both became immigrant destinations in recent decades, and then lost many inhabitants in the last four years as a result of the recession.

As Rob Bijl notes, “In a few years time, Poland could just as easily become an immigrant country.”

[pjotr]

From the Website of the European parlaiment

MEPs to scrutinise Dutch discriminatory website
PLENARY SESSION Fundamental rights − 13-03-2012 - 10:09

EU citizens' basic rights, such as free movement and non-discrimination, will be under the spotlight on Tuesday (today) at 15.00, in a plenary debate sparked by the launch of a website inviting Dutch citizens to post complaints about central and eastern Europeans living in The Netherlands. A resolution will be put to the vote on Thursday.

[pjotr]

Racism and xenophobia have no place in today's Europe

Liberals and Democrats in the European Parliament roundly condemn the content of the PVV website in the Netherlands. At the debate on the subject of discriminatory websites and government responses today Guy Verhofstadt spoke on behalf of the ALDE group:

13/03/2012


Guy Verhofstadt

Liberals and Democrats in the European Parliament roundly condemn the content of the PVV website in the Netherlands. At the debate on the subject of discriminatory websites and government responses today Guy Verhofstadt spoke on behalf of the ALDE group:
"There is no place in today's Europe for the kind of hate messages fostered by the PVV website which incites Dutch voters to blame Eastern Europeans, full members of the European Union, for losing their jobs at a time of financial and economic crisis."
"All parties in the Dutch Government should join us in distancing themselves from the content of this website and condemning the intent to incite intolerance and hatred amongst fellow Europeans."
"Nevertheless we must be even-handed in our criticism of such populist tactics designed purely for electoral appeal. The verbal attacks this week by President Sarkozy on immigrants and the Schengen agreement are even worse than the silence of the Dutch government on the issue of the PVV. The EPP should not be hypocritical or selective in their criticism but cast an eye at their own political family members first before they cast a stone at others."