EU Constitution - No Information

[Al Khalifah]

With a series of referendums approaching for several EU member states, it deeply troubles me how informed those who will make the decision are - the electorate. Research in France has shown that over 50% of the population are unaware of the content of the constitution and of those that are, the vast majority have only scant understanding.

Watching television in Britain and France recently, I am amazed at how little information is actually being dispensed by the news services. Every news article seems to follow the same format:
A referendum is coming... About 60 seconds on what it contains... 10 minutes on what both sides think it means, usually with two people (one for one against) squaring off and pulling each others argument apart. If not, there will be copious editorialising.
Why can they not just inform people of what the referendum actually means and do their job as a news service, rather than editorialising and providing a forum for overly subjective debate. People cannot make up their minds unless they sit down and read the constitution themselves, because the media is failing to provide an unbiased summary of its content. Rather people are making up their minds based on what each side says and voting on personality and prejudice rather than the issue at hand. All they have suceeded in doing is reducing the constitution referendum to the issue of: Do you like the EU?

In the UK it seems to be even worse, with nearly the majority of the population believing this is also a referendum about the Euro.

This is another example of the media failing in its duty to inform the population by digesting the vast amount of paperwork and procedure being produced by governments and providing a fair summary to their audience.

[doc_bean]

Misinformation is a huge problem for the EU, at least the US is pretty transparent and has a SMALL constitution, the EU one is a whole book.

Besides there isn't that much new in it either, it's mostly symbolic, so in a way, it's normal that this is turning out to be popularity poll for the EU.

I'm not against the EU, and would vote for the constitution if we were allowed to, but our wise government decided that we aren't, because they think we will vote against it.

I like how European politicians are finally recognizing that there is such a thing as a 'democratic deficit' in Europe. I certainly hope we don't get those nice ol' party politics on a (European) federal level, and please, no parliamentary executive either.

Maybe if the vote of the average person would impact policy just a little more, there would be better information, but I'm probably just hoping.

[Meneldil]

You clearly don't understand the problem.

Though some people will vote 'no' because they are told it's too much liberal (economicaly), or 'yes' because they are told it will protect workers, human rights and so on, the vast majority is just voting for or against the EU institutions.
Basically, a lot of people think that the economic issues in France (industries going to country such as China, Vietnam, etc. ; high unemployement rate ; agricultural difficulties ; mass immigration ; privatisation of some state services) are caused by EU, or that EU should have protected them from that.

Furthermore, every household was sent at least on treaty (We received 3 in my house) and be sure that a lot of people have read the text (probably much more than what was expected at first).
And yes, there are some errors being made by the media everyday, sometime because they have agenda (our channel "Canal +" is clearly against the treaty) or because they just suck.
Some politician are also guilty for this, as the far right wing always bring in the Turkey issue, while the far left wing always bring in the Bolkestein directive and economic liberalism.

There was a TV show yesterday, with 4 people for the 'yes' (Socialist party, UMP -Moderate right-, UDF (center/right) and Les Verts (environement party, left of the left ~D ) and 4 people for the 'no' (Trotkist party, Communist, extreme Right -Le Pen's daughter- and another far right guy). As you may guess, it went pretty silly, with the 'no' guys using pointless or unrelated agruments.

In other countries, the issue is different : in UK, some people will vote no because they think the 'yes' will mean 'welcome euro or federal state' or just because they dislike EU, in Dutchland, they are voting against the euro (apparently life is much more expensive since the euro is effectively working)
I might post something about the whole EU issue someday, because it's quite interesting of what Europe is becoming. Etc. etc.

[Husar]

Basically, a lot of people think that the economic issues in France (industries going to country such as China, Vietnam, etc. ; high unemployement rate ; agricultural difficulties ; mass immigration ; privatisation of some state services) are caused by EU, or that EU should have protected them from that.

So people in Germany are not the only ones to think that....
Well, we blame our government, too.

Oh, and I have no idea about the constitution, if I were interested, I had to buy it, because our government decided to not give it to us and to not let us decide as well. That´s modern democracy. :dizzy2:

[Meneldil]

The main problem is that our gvts keep saying "It's EU's fault" when they screw up something.

[doc_bean]

The amount of power that is given to the EU is often a problem for national governments, and things like the 'Bolkenstein' directive certainly limit their options.

A problem we are having recently is that our social security (medical aid) is becoming far to expensive, a possible solution would be to implent a system similar to New Zealand, only paying back the cheapest generic medicines. Unfortunately, that can't be done in the EU.

Their needs to be a clear balance of power between the nations and the EU.

I also perfectly understand the British, they are very different, in social views, in economy, in judiciary system, and in other ways from the rest of western Europe, that they stand to lose a lot when the EU becomes more powerful.

[Adrian II]

With a series of referendums approaching for several EU member states, it deeply troubles me how informed those who will make the decision are - the electorate.That is nearly always the case in elections and referendums. Citizens are not as informed as you or I or some politicians would want them to be on certain important issues; on the other hand there are groups that want the public to be as little informed of those issues as possible. And then there are citizens who feel that you and I and many politicians aren't nearly as well informed as we should be about issues which they hold important...

Democracy is only the second-best system of government, the trouble is there is no first. All other systems have greater flaws.

The main reason why I think democracy is superior to authoritarian rule is that tyrants or ruling oligarchies make at least as many mistakes as democratic governments, but with the added disadvantage that their tendency to cling to power makes it unlikely that those mistakes will be undone, repaired, or even addressed. Whilst reading History, I never ceased to be amazed how immensely stupid many well-groomed, well-placed and well-educated autocratic rulers through the ages actually were; most were as stupid, one-sided, deluded and emotionally imbalanced as the least of the EU's present citizens is today.

The second reason why I think democracy is superior to authoritarian rule is that the cumulative experience, wisdom and intelligence of a people at least equals the cumulative experience, wisdom and intelligence of the ones who govern it. People shouldn't govern themselves; but they should appoint those who govern them, and hold them to account for their actions.

For these reasons every manifestation of the popular will or verdict must be respected, even if we feel it is based upon insufficient knowledge, because it is of a higher order than the will or verdict of rulers, bureaucrats and all the other lower vertebrae of a government or ruling caste. Yes, rulers know things that their peoples don't know or will never understand; but people know things that their rulers don't know or will never understand. The latter are in charge for good reason.

So we must respect these European referenda: they are the result of democratic procedures and themselves constitute a form of democratic scrutiny. Even if only ten percent of voters appear at the ballot box, we should accept that the other ninety have their reasons not to appear and that it would be foolish for any politician to ignore or belittle them.

This being said, I will vote 'Yes' because I think this treaty will streamline collective European decision making without challenging or prejudicing any of the basic legal tenets and future projections of the European Union as a democratic entity. Don't ask me where these developments will lead us in ten or fifty years time because I don't know; time, external conflict and internal experience will tell us who and what Europeans really are. But I'm willing to give the experiment a try.

[A.Saturnus]

Yesterday, the German parliament has accepted the EU Constitution with a two-third majority. The Stern, a major German news magazine (www.stern.de ) has titled the report about that as follows:
"49 percent for Constitution"
It then went on that the Constitution passed the parliament without immediate explanations how that can be. Later in the article it came out that the 49 percent are the part of the citizens of the EU that have no approved - via referendum or parliament - of the Constitution. The article did not mention how large the majority in the German parliament was. I invoke Heinlein's razor though.

[Meneldil]

That is nearly always the case in elections and referendums. Citizens are not as informed as you or I or some politicians would want them to be on certain important issues; on the other hand there are groups that want the public to be as little informed of those issues as possible. And then there are citizens who feel that you and I and many politicians aren't nearly as well informed as we should be about issues which they hold important...


Very true. I talk about the EU constitution with a friend yesterday, and he often told me "You just don't know what you're speaking about", and I was thinking exactly the same for him.

Another problem in France is the - quite silly - cultural attachement to the Revolution myth. A vast part of the population think that the Revolution created a great social system, while its real aim was rather economical.

I don't know any other country where the word 'liberalism' seems to be an equivalent to 'nazi' or 'The Real Evil Thing That Must Be Fought At All Cost'. Far (far) leftous guys always use that word when something is going wrong, while in fact France its crippled by its public health system and other social policy.
(Do not get me wrong here, I'm all for social (being socialist myself), but these kind of policy just can't work without a valid economy, and right now we (France, Germany) don't have a really effective economy.)

On the other hand, far left (and far right) have a great impact on the public opinion, while most of their ideas are totally outdated. This is just making me sick of my country. A few months ago, I found communists to be pretty funny, but now, I just hate them for what they are doing.
The fact that they pretend they'll teach all european countries how they have to behave is also rather disgusting (basically, their arguing is : "Once the NO wins in France, people from all Europe will understand that EU is a bad thing, and everyone will agree to re-start Europe from scratch, based on our -totally outdated, silly and unrealistic - socialist point of view).


I can't really explain how I feel shameful for my country. While most french brag about how good and democratic they are because they are discussing a critical issue, I just see a lot of people lying, screwing up my country and using false arguments to serve their own interests.

[BDC]

I think the issue here is NO ONE knows exactly what's in it or what it means. Even the people who wrote it don't fully understand it. It's a mess.

[doc_bean]

France keeps surprising me, especially with the recent attacks on wine importers. How low can you go ? I don't think there is more protectionistic country in the world (France is also mostly to blame for the EU agricultural policy, which is worth several threads of its own).

But similar things are happening all over western europe, how do we expect to survive, as fist world nations, when we are chasing the industry away, and are breeding generations of workers that don't want to work more then 38h a week, at a cost of 20-30€ an hour (I think this is about the lowest possible pay rate in Belgium, for a campany).

Bleh, socialism works, but we need boundaries !

[Meneldil]

France keeps surprising me, especially with the recent attacks on wine importers. How low can you go ? I don't think there is more protectionistic country in the world

Yes, and it has always been like that. Even in the late 19th century (which was probably the most capitalistic era), France achieved to be a major power while being protectionistic and not having a lot of big industries.
And hmmm, a lot of country tend to become protectionistic when it comes to protect their interests (US, China, and so on)


(France is also mostly to blame for the EU agricultural policy, which is worth several threads of its own).

True, yet peasants are massively going to vote against the treaty, though they couldn't survive without EU.


But similar things are happening all over western europe, how do we expect to survive, as fist world nations, when we are chasing the industry away, and are breeding generations of workers that don't want to work more then 38h a week, at a cost of 20-30€ an hour (I think this is about the lowest possible pay rate in Belgium, for a campany).

Well, that's not really the problem. I'm not yet on the work market (I've already worked during summers, to get some money for my studies, but that's about it), but I will never accept to work more than my parents did, and to earn less money in the end.
What you're blaiming is currently the goal of each society. You can't just jump back 50 years later. I know I would attempt a revolution if my governement was trying to do that, wether it would be required or not.

Furthermore, I don't want to sound like a far leftous guy (you might have noticed that I don't really like them), but the current problem is IMHo mostly caused by capitalism and neo liberalism. When an american pension found (I hope that's how you say it) can fire 2.000 workers in another country just to earn more money, or when a major industries leave its native country to go to China, I think there's a serious problem.

[doc_bean]

Yes, and it has always been like that. Even in the late 19th century (which was probably the most capitalistic era), France achieved to be a major power while being protectionistic and not having a lot of big industries.
And hmmm, a lot of country tend to become protectionistic when it comes to protect their interests (US, China, and so on)

I never said protectionism was wrong, in fact I think we might need more of it, but at the borders of the Union, not between nations belonging to the EU.




True, yet peasants are massively going to vote against the treaty, though they couldn't survive without EU.


I think they prefer to be referred to as 'farmers' these days.



Well, that's not really the problem. I'm not yet on the work market (I've already worked during summers, to get some money for my studies, but that's about it), but I will never accept to work more than my parents did, and to earn less money in the end.
What you're blaiming is currently the goal of each society. You can't just jump back 50 years later. I know I would attempt a revolution if my governement was trying to do that, wether it would be required or not.

There are ups and downs, certainly in a free market environment. You've got to accept the downs. If you don't recognize the need for cheaper labour, so national companies can stay competitive in a globalized market, a lot of companies will move to other countries were they can get cheap and flexible labour. This will lead to unemployment, which will require the working part of society to pay for the unemployed which will further raise labour costs, which will lead to more companies moving....

I don't like it, but you have to face reality sometimes. The sooner you react to a crisis, the better you can contain it.




Furthermore, I don't want to sound like a far leftous guy (you might have noticed that I don't really like them), but the current problem is IMHo mostly caused by capitalism and neo liberalism. When an american pension found (I hope that's how you say it) can fire 2.000 workers in another country just to earn more money, or when a major industries leave its native country to go to China, I think there's a serious problem.

Welcome to the free market my friend. Whatever adam Smith might have said or thought, it IS a bitch.

However, those are the rules we chose to play by, and those are the rules we'll have to follow (I don't see another communist revolution coming).

Globalization has many downsides that i fear are ignored too much because big business does benefit from it. And I'm not just referring to how it impacts on poor South American or African countries (where it leads to horrible situations), I mean that globalization, in the long run, will undermine our, rich, Western society.
I think the EU, over time, might become a powerful instrument to protect ourselves, as is demonstrated by the farm subsidies.

[Adrian II]

Welcome to the free market my friend. Whatever adam Smith might have said or thought, it IS a bitch.A free market is not the same as a fair market. We don't need free markets because they are directed (instead of served) by monopolistic or oligarchic industries, often based on premodern institutes (such as the industrial conglomerates in Japan and South Korea). The formula for fair markets has yet to be found, it is waiting for its Adam Smith. Sorry to sound so 'profound', but I have little time. Just to say that as a socialist I find nothing wrong with competition, it is essential for freedom, progress and growth. There should be no Bill Gates's and no closed French wine markets in this world. And markets for ideas should be opened/kept open at any price.

Just 2 cts. :bow:

[Crazed Rabbit]

There should be no Bill Gates's and no closed French wine markets in this world.

No Bill Gates? You want to take away 90% of the operatings systems in the world?

And has it ever occured to the miimum wage increase-happy socialists in Europe that raising wages means the companies have to raise costs, thus raising the cost of living, thus causing the unions to whine for another increase in wages? When the nanny states put controls and regulations over every single aspect of a person's life and business, they dramatically increase the cost of living.

In India and China, people are willing to work for less. This helps the western consumers, but causes the wester workers in those fields to whine for protection since they don't want to have their wages cut.

Speaking of protectionism, the US is relatively un-protective economically.

Crazed Rabbit

[doc_bean]

No Bill Gates? You want to take away 90% of the operatings systems in the world?


I think he was giving an example of how wealth can accumulate with one person, instead of being more evenly spread out across society.

I don't like the Gates example, Microsoft is mostly focused on one thing (Windows, with related activities in the software/hardware industry) and they spend a ton of money on innovative ideas 'just because'. I never heard about them treating their employies badly either.

Better examples of an 'evil' corporations would be Proctor and Gamble, Macdonalds, and (arguably) the whole pharmaceutical industry.
The pharmaceutical industry is difficult to judge, on the one hand they keep the cost of medicine artificially high and they spend most money researching drugs for 'trivial' matters such as impotence, while spending very little on things like malaria. They also didn't want the third world to have cheap (aids) medication. On the other hand, most of the money they receive is probably invested in researching new drugs, which of course does benefit society a great deal.


I think an ideal socialist system (although this might even be considered communist I guess) would be one where the employees owned a significant part of the company. That way their interest coincide with those of the company, which would minimize the migration of manufacturing plants to third world countries, but also, imho, would minimise strikes and other 'sabotage' actions. It is, in a very direct way, in the employees best interest to keep the company viable.
This system does require a 'low' social security. At least when it comes to unemployment benefits.





And has it ever occured to the miimum wage increase-happy socialists in Europe that raising wages means the companies have to raise costs, thus raising the cost of living, thus causing the unions to whine for another increase in wages? When the nanny states put controls and regulations over every single aspect of a person's life and business, they dramatically increase the cost of living.

I don't think minimum wage is such a problem. Unions are far more powerful in Europe than in the states. They determine what wages are given by a company, much more than the government setting a minimum wage.



In India and China, people are willing to work for less. This helps the western consumers, but causes the wester workers in those fields to whine for protection since they don't want to have their wages cut.


And this is what I was warning for. Companies are bigger than nations now, they will move to where they can operate the cheapest, and if necessary, they will fly in qualified people from wherever in the world they can be found. The average, and let's be honest, relatively unskilled employee in Europe will lose his/her job. The rest will not be able to, or not be willing to pay for their welfare. And this will turn into the third world.

Of course, I'm dramatizing, but there is a real threat, and these ostrich politics that are so popular now will only worsen the problem.

I fear, as much as it pains me to say, the Europe might need its Reagan.




Speaking of protectionism, the US is relatively un-protective economically.


About the same as the EU I think, strong protection for the agricultural sector, the steel, car and defense industry.

[Adrian II]

I don't like the Gates example, Microsoft is mostly focused on one thing (..)Making profit through monopolisation, just like the French wine producers. We should radically change the range and lifecycle of intellectual property rights. Such changes made capitalism into what it is. Without decisive legal rulings and new laws on this point in 1750's Britain, there would not have been an Industrial Revolution to begin with. Changes which, by the way, constitute Britain's true contribution to mankind, not the afternoon tea-Empire-cricket nonsense. And we make capitalism into something different than it is now by changing them again.

The notion that a company should have any 'right' to the genetic make-up of a traditional Indian healing plant (the naim) that was developed over millennia of cultivation is not just a crime, it is a mistake, just like the foolish notion that French winemakers somehow 'own' a particular grape.

Oh, an nanny states have little to do with minimum wages. Collective bargaining is the operative principle here, the outcome being a more egalitarian, generally more pleasant society with less violence, higher mean education levels, more holidays, good work-life balance, etcetera. I like it that way. Europeans like it that way. Americans who think that notions of social progress somehow lack economic acumen should remember where capitalism (and any other worthwhile social and intellectual movement) started.

[Meneldil]

Yes, major companies are more powerful than States now, but IMHO that won't last forever.
They can't just always move to cheaper contries, because in the end, no one will be able to buy their goods. It might sounds naive, but I can't see anything else happening, because the country they move to aren't becoming wealthier, while the country they left usually become poorer.
Btw, the fact that consummers (sp?) are always looking for cheaper goods make them guilty for what is happening now.


And no, chineses are not *willing* to work for less money. They don't have the choice. I guess if you were to ask a chinese worker if he prefers to work in the chinese or european way, how many will chose to work 16 hours a day for nothing ?



I think an ideal socialist system (although this might even be considered communist I guess) would be one where the employees owned a significant part of the company. That way their interest coincide with those of the company, which would minimize the migration of manufacturing plants to third world countries, but also, imho, would minimise strikes and other 'sabotage' actions. It is, in a very direct way, in the employees best interest to keep the company viable.
This system does require a 'low' social security. At least when it comes to unemployment benefits.


This idea sounds indeed cool, but a similar system already failled in some communists states.

[doc_bean]

Making profit through monopolisation, just like the French wine producers. We should radically change the range and lifecycle of intellectual property rights. Such changes made capitalism into what it is. Without decisive legal rulings and new laws on this point in 1750's Britain, there would not have been an Industrial Revolution to begin with. Changes which, by the way, constitute Britain's true contribution to mankind, not the afternoon tea-Empire-cricket nonsense. And we make capitalism into something different than it is now by changing them again.

The notion that a company should have any 'right' to the genetic make-up of a traditional Indian healing plant (the naim) that was developed over millennia of cultivation is not just a crime, it is a mistake, just like the foolish notion that French winemakers somehow 'own' a particular grape.

In Europe, you can't own anything that is naturally occurring, you can however, patent any modification to it, and (I think) any possible use for it. (quite a few patents needed for that), as long as the use is 'new' and non-trivial.

Intellectual property is one of the most important aspects of today's economy, you surely can't just dismiss them, it would halt or seriously slow down progress.



Oh, an nanny states have little to do with minimum wages. Collective bargaining is the operative principle here, the outcome being a more egalitarian, generally more pleasant society with less violence, higher mean education levels, more holidays, good work-life balance, etcetera. I like it that way. Europeans like it that way. Americans who think that notions of social progress somehow lack economic acumen should remember where capitalism (and any other worthwhile social and intellectual movement) started.

I agree, but sometimes we need to be able to make sacrifices, in a zero growth economy like Belgium, unions are still demanding as much as a 10% increase in wages next year, often in companies that are already in financial problems. Add to that the use of 'pre-emptive strikes' that seems to have become pretty popular (we had such a train strike two weeks ago) and you get a very twisted system.
We need to be socially responsible, but this means that we should also be responsible for what happens to and with 'our' companies.



Yes, major companies are more powerful than States now, but IMHO that won't last forever.
They can't just always move to cheaper contries, because in the end, no one will be able to buy their goods. It might sounds naive, but I can't see anything else happening, because the country they move to aren't becoming wealthier, while the country they left usually become poorer.

Yes, but then we'll have a global economic crises and we're still screwed, We'll have to start all over again.



Btw, the fact that consummers (sp?) are always looking for cheaper goods make them guilty for what is happening now.


Very true, a few years ago Renault closed a factory here which led to quite a drama. The next year, Renault sales had gone up in Belgium. Costumers are unaware of their responsibility. France might actually be the exception here. A lot of people seem to buy 'local' there.




And no, chineses are not *willing* to work for less money. They don't have the choice. I guess if you were to ask a chinese worker if he prefers to work in the chinese or european way, how many will chose to work 16 hours a day for nothing ?


But they DO work for less money, regardless. Companies are interested in cheap labour, how it is achieved concerns them very little.




This idea sounds indeed cool, but a similar system already failled in some communists states.


I think after the French revolution people experimented with similar systems and also failed, it might be that the system is not flexible enough.

I do believe me need a second democratic evolution, instead of 'we the government' it should also be 'we the companies'. People should by domestic products, support their companies when they are in need (not kick 'em while they're down at least) and create a healthy economic climate (lowering labour costs through the government), in exchange, companies will have a greater interest in staying were they are, and in employing locals. (They have to if they want us as costumers.)

[JAG]

I would rather die than see any government state 'we the companies' rather than 'we the government', that is a step backwards beyond recognition, even the US pretends it is a government even though it is run by companies, it would be disturbing if we went down that path.

I totally agree that we should have a system where the workers get a share of the company they work in, that not only breeds worker / company bonds which mean that they work in mutual interest but also clearly helps create a fairer society.

I don't think we should all buy local goods, I am all for free trade - maybe surprisingly :p I do not mind having a system where we are all buying foreign goods but as long as it is fair and each country can specialise in specific strenghs. Through that we would have a stronger EU working better together and generating more economic growth and prosperity for each other.

[Al Khalifah]

I don't think we should all buy local goods, I am all for free trade - maybe surprisingly :p I do not mind having a system where we are all buying foreign goods but as long as it is fair and each country can specialise in specific strenghs. Through that we would have a stronger EU working better together and generating more economic growth and prosperity for each other.
The problem with the EU at the moment is that nations are not being allowed to specialise in their own national strengths because of the inherent wealth re-distribution agenda that underpins the modern European Union.
I do not believe that at present the EU nations are working together to further economic growth, but rather the corporations that are spread throughout the EU are exploiting economic vacuums and wage gaps to maximise their profits. Though the concept of a nation is dying by the day, the EU is still a group of nations with often vastly conflicting interests and until some of its fundamental flaws are addressed, it will achieve nothing as a democratic institution because there is no common interest amongst members and no nation is strong enough to enforce hegemony over the others.
The major dangers to the future of the EU are the United Kingdom and France, because they are constantly on the defensive and working towards keeping what is already theirs rather than looking forward to the future. Germany and possibly Italy also look like they will start down this path. While this sort of protectionism may bring short-term maintainance of the popular interest of these nations, it will also bring the EU to a halt, because the power in the organisation rests with them.

Therefore, what the EU needs rather than a constitution is a common series of goal for all nations to work towards. Otherwise its major members will be too busy protecting their national interest from the fear of 'foreign' economic invasion to have concern for the direction of the body as a whole.

[doc_bean]

I would rather die than see any government state 'we the companies' rather than 'we the government', that is a step backwards beyond recognition, even the US pretends it is a government even though it is run by companies, it would be disturbing if we went down that path.


You misunderstand, I said the people should say that they 'are' the company, not the government. It's the other side of the socialist 'revolution' of the late 19th century. Back then, the workers realized they had power, they could halt production and undermine their companies if they wanted to. And with that power they negotiated better, fairer deals.

However, now that power is often used to choke companies, because, I believe so at least, with power comes responsibility. Employees have the power to bankrupt their company, or to cause it serious losses, but this doesn't mean they can abuse this power to bleed certain companies dry, and then start collecting their unemployment benefits. The employees need to keep a company viable, and if they think they don't get paid enough, they should move to a company that pays them more, not sabotage the company they are with. If enough people leave, the company will be forced to increase its pay, simple supply and demand.

Unfortunately, unions these days act as oliarchs on the labour market, artificially keeping the price high. You (or some other socialists) like to complain how monopolies are evil, well unions are doing the same.

I'm not saying they don't serve a purpose (they are often needed to protect employees) but the power they have is often abused. Union representatives within a company often don't feel any loyalty to that company. They can distort the truth to their members and can cause an unhealthy work atmosphere.

Add to it that in Belgium, unions are paid (by the government) for UNemployed workers, does this promote a healthy economic climate with willing workers and sensible unions ? I doubt it.


In short: everyone is responsible, as an individual and as a whole, for the wellbeing of the state (democracy) and the economic climate (socialism, the emancipation of workers). People need to accept that responsibility.



I don't think we should all buy local goods, I am all for free trade - maybe surprisingly :p I do not mind having a system where we are all buying foreign goods but as long as it is fair and each country can specialize in specific strengths. Through that we would have a stronger EU working better together and generating more economic growth and prosperity for each other.

This is, unfortunately, an illusion. Take Belgium for example, with Brussels, capital of Europe and pretty much the highest labour costs in the world.
What should we specialize in ? The cliché has it we're good at languages, that's a plus, we have the most well educated group of employees in the world, that's nice. So what should we specialize iin ? Innovation, high-end technology, chemical and pharmaceutical industry and administration (for the EU and the government) right ? That's the governments plan (or at least it was)

Wrong I say. Why ? Even if we take all those qualities into account, only about 50% of Belgians have enjoyed university/college education. What is the rest supposed to do ? Sure, a certain portion can become our plumbers, or learn how to repair our fancy cars. But 50% ? We need manufacturing industry, it's the only way we can employ enough of the 'blue collar' class. unfortunately, due to our very high labou costs, all manufactuing industry is disappearing, raising labour costs on other sectors, to the point were our 'high potential workforce' is becoming to expensive for companies. They stay here because they have billions of euro's worth of equipment, but they downsize, and new companies aren't coming anymore.

What does this have to do with the free market and specialization you wonder ? Quite simple, we don't have the potential to 'specialize' sufficiently to matter. What we can do, others can do, cheaper because only 50% of our people can do what companies are coming here for, and the other 50% need a good life too. This means for every person a company hires, it has to pay for two (in reality, it's worse).

There is another problem: our high potential workforce is concentrated in only half of our country, Flanders, with about 6.6 million residents (out of a little over 10 million Belgians). This means that in the other part of our country, there is 'structural poverty': unemployment rates over 50%, bad housing, high crime, teenage mothers, etc.
Every year, about 5.5 billion euros gets transferred from Flanders to Wallony. this is about 2000€ per working resident of Flanders per year. And a lot of people here are getting rather tired of that. A lot of people here don't want to pay anymore.

Now imagine Europe, or the world, globalization in full effect, our food is provided for by Africa, our manufacturing industry is located in Asia. What do we do ? Sit in our offices and run the whole thing ? Fine. How many of us are needed to do that ?How many are capable of doing that ? What happens to the rest ? Who will support them ?

IMHO globalization can be a very bad thing, the main idea is that more wealth can be created by doing everything where it can be done most effectively right ? But what happens to the places that can't compete ? That don't have the right resources, or climate, or educated workforce ? Structural poverty on a massive scale.

There are mor arguments I could throw around, but I'll save them for later ~D

[Meneldil]

I don't think we should all buy local goods, I am all for free trade - maybe surprisingly :p I do not mind having a system where we are all buying foreign goods but as long as it is fair and each country can specialize in specific strengths. Through that we would have a stronger EU working better together and generating more economic growth and prosperity for each other.

The 'each country is specialised in specific goods' system has already shown its weakness. Economists like Adam Smith and Ricardo thought it would be a good way to have an equal devellopement accros the world more than a century ago, and you can see the results on the third world.

[Papewaio]

This is, unfortunately, an illusion. Take Belgium for example, with Brussels, capital of Europe and pretty much the highest labour costs in the world.
What should we specialize in ? The cliché has it we're good at languages, that's a plus, we have the most well educated group of employees in the world, that's nice. So what should we specialize iin ? Innovation, high-end technology, chemical and pharmaceutical industry and administration (for the EU and the government) right ? That's the governments plan (or at least it was)

Map & Graph: Education: Educational attainment - Tertiary (Top 10 Countries)
Scroll down for more information Show map full screen

Country Description

Definition: Percentage of adult population (aged 25-64) educated till tertiary level (year 2000).

Amount
1. Canada 42%
2. United States 37%
3. Ireland 36%
4. Japan 34%
5. Finland 32%
6. Sweden 32%
7. Australia 29%
8. New Zealand 29%
9. Norway 28%
10. Belgium 27%

Being in the top ten is pretty good. But the workforce is not being generated by Belgium if it is the best educated in the world it is relying on importing talent in.

Belgium is second in the world for:

Map & Graph: Education: Proportion of 17 year olds in secondary education (Top 50 Countries)
Scroll down for more information Show map full screen

Country Description

Definition: Percentage share of 17 year-olds enrolled in secondary education. Based on net enrolment rates, attained by head count. Data for 2000.

Amount
1. Czech Republic 98%
2. Belgium 96%
3. Finland 94%
4. Canada 93%
5. Japan 92%
6. Germany 92%
7. Norway 92%
8. Sweden 91%
9. Netherlands 89%
10. Poland 89%

[doc_bean]

Definition: Percentage of adult population (aged 25-64) educated till tertiary level (year 2000).


I think we use a smaller age bracket, since people over 50 don't get used in our unemployment rate either. The older generations are pretty uneducated.



Definition: Percentage share of 17 year-olds enrolled in secondary education. Based on net enrolment rates, attained by head count. Data for 2000.

Amount
1. Czech Republic 98%
2. Belgium 96%


Several 17y olds are enrolled in higher education already, i wonder if they are added here, it would seem not.

[Papewaio]

You fell into my cunning plan of revealing tertiary education:

Note Australia is number one ~D ~:cheers:

Map & Graph: Education: Proportion of 17 year olds in tertiary education (Top 50 Countries)
Scroll down for more information Show map full screen

Country Description

Definition: Percentage share of 17 year-olds enrolled in tertiary education. Based on net enrolment rates, attained by head count. Data for 2000.

Amount
1. Australia 5%
2. Netherlands 5%
3. Ireland 5%
4. Canada 4%
5. New Zealand 3%
6. Portugal 3%
7. Turkey 3%
8. Mexico 3%
9. United States 2%
10. France 2%
11. United Kingdom 2%
12. Germany 1%
13. Belgium 1%

[doc_bean]

You fell into my cunning plan of revealing tertiary education:

Note Australia is number one ~D ~:cheers:


Congratulations, it's not really supported here, few people do it (1% it seems ~:) )


It does mean 97% of our 17y olds are still in school.

[Papewaio]

I think the problem with these comparisons is that the level of education at various ages is different between countries and even states. Also it may not be reflecting the very valuable apprentice system for trades.

For instance Western Australians start university during the year they turn 18. I was 17 when I started Uni as was the majority of my classmates (is was Feb/early March so you would expect 5 out of 6 to still be 17).

While in NSW (another Australian state) they turn 19 during the first year of their university degrees.