Anunţ publicitar al Statului Român in ziarele mari ale lumii:

Cine a putut, ştiut şi vrut a plecat.

Avem nevoie de ajutor!
Plătim la nivelul pieţei.
Preferăm vorbitori de Româna!

______________________________


poante § intelart § cafeneaua
© 2005
cel mai vechi blog peromaneste

2.6.05

Europa: Mon amour vs. Schadenfreude

Mai intai votul francez, urmat de cel olandez, si iata ca euro-imaginatia populara se da in vileag cu o tensiune tipica vreunui eveniment milenar. Prin simpla analiza a vocilor din popoare, se pare ca lucrurile sunt complicate fiindca ne uitam la:

  1. politica europeana;
  2. finantele europene;
  3. economia europeana;
  4. "visul" european;

...ca si cum ne-am da cu parerea despre o farfurie de spaghetti.

  • Se incearca de catre elite armonizarea/integrarea politicii europene prin aceasta constitutie si se vede (cu surprindere?) ca rezistenta populara este neasteptat de mare din directii la fel de neasteptate. S-a mers putin cam repede, iar in cazul unui esec al adoptarii contitutiei vom avea cel mai probabil de-a face cu o uniune 'nedemocratica' in trepte. Alternativa ar fi dezintegrarea cacofonica a unei Uniuni largite care are nevoie de unanimitatea voturilor celor 25+2 state. Dintre cauzele respingerii constitutiei la vot popular putem sa ne gandim la a) dimensiunea acesteia (elitele politice de la Bruxelles par ca au vrut sa captureze in paginile ei toate 'realizarile' lor birocratice, vezi referiri la nivelul pescuitului comunitar); b) consolidarea birocratica a Bruxellesului, considerata deja excesiva (tari ca Olanda sau cele scandinave ar conta teoretic mai putin decat Polonia sau Romania). Curios este ca francezii au votat tot impotriva considerand ca aceasta constitutie ar fi inlesnit ambitiile universale (ale clasei politice) franceze.
  • Prin adoptarea euro, s-a incercat din nou integrarea monetara la nivel european, fapt care a are consecinte nedorite deja pentru economii atat de diferite ca acelea ale Germaniei si Italiei. Faptul ca Italia este aproape de soarta Argentinei, iar Germania si Franta au ignorat in cativa ani consecutivi pactul de stabilitate sunt indicatii incipiente ale crizelor ce vor urma.
  • Nu ca as fi in pozitia respectiva, insa as recomanda eurocratilor sa se uite mai serios la punctul nr. 3 de mai sus. Daca vesticii ar avea onestitatea necesara sa-si administreze lor insile tratamentele cu care-i tot "opreseaza" pe romani ar fi un bun inceput. Sa va dau un exemplu care vine din cele 7 scrisori pentru Romania: acolo se spune de bulgari ca mai au inca de deschis piata la servicii (noi am facut-o de mult lasand serviciile europene sa inlocuiasca monopolurile 'naturale' ale statului). Pai despre servicii si deschiderea pietelor nationale la servicii trans-europene mai vorbea ca de un deziderat european si recenta agenda lui Barrosso--deci ceea ce i se cere Bulgariei si Romania s-a achitat deja inca nu-i realitate in vest. Mai mult de atat, franco-germanii au torpilat povestea cu piata europeana de servicii pana la desfigurarea acesteia.

Din Ziua, iata rezumatul scrisorilor in discutie:

"Celelalte patru domenii cu probleme sunt: impozitarea, achizitiile publice, proprietatea intelectuala si agricultura, unde se constata intarzieri atat in ce priveste sistemul de plati computerizat pentru subventiile europene, cat si in aplicarea legislatiei fito-sanitare.

Bulgaria ar putea si ea primi scrisori de avertizare in cinci domenii: justitie si afaceri interne, agricultura, mediul inconjurator, concurenta si libera circulatie a serviciilor. Pentru comparatie, in valul de extindere anterior, opt din cele zece candidate au primit scrisori de avertizare cu un an inaintea aderarii, cele mai multe - sapte - fiind adresate Poloniei."
  • Daca pe lumea asta micimana (dpdv al principiilor) a politicienilor din vest ar mai fi oameni de calibrul lui Adenauer, De Gaulle (sau chiar Mitterand si Kohl) poate ca sansele-i de succes la integrare ar fi reale. Altfel, sa tot scoata marote cu imigranti si fomisti, este sinucigas pana la urma. Macar americanii, o societate care nu-i obsedata de egalitate cat de libertate, nu da iluzii nimanui si se ajunge in acele cazuri cand 'diplomati' de aiurea conduc taxiuri sau aduc pizza la domiciliu. Europenii tot pun egalitatea in fata, insa nu stiu cum se face ca, de exemplu, franzujii se vor (orwellian) mai egali decat altii. Pentru cei care gasesc acest ultim paragraf greu de urmarit in contextul initial, trebuie sa spun ca discutia s-a deplasat la "visul" european: acel set de aspiratii si asteptari pe care fiecare individ cu eticheta "european" le are si vrea sa-i fie satisfacute. Pe scurt, visurile europenilor nu numai ca sunt diferite, sunt antagonice. Si daca economia (citeste bunastarea) nu poate 'modifica' aceste visuri, incepem sa avem reactii tipice angoasei si stressului. Aceste reactii, ilustrate copios si uneori chiar umoristic si in sectiunea de comentarii a acestui posting, se inscriu in intervalul:
Europa: Mon amour! vs. Schadenfreude




Da click aici ca sa vezi totul peromaneste!

25 de comentarii:

peromaneste spunea...

De la: Viviana (...@hotmail.it)
Re: Mi se pare sau ... Teoria ca teoria, dar practica ne omoara !
Ce legatura are situatia din Italia cu ce s-a intamplat in Argentina?
De adevarat tu stii ce s-a intamplat in Argentina?
"Ce i-o fi trebuit lui Berlusconi euro?"
Berlusconi a sosit la 4 luni dupa Euro si pentru debitul public italian (cel mai mare di tarile care au adoptat moneta unica) a fost salvarea. Bogatia reala a Italiei si a italianilor e de 6 ori mai mare decat Debitul altminteri ...
Cunosti Berlusconi cum il cunosti pe Schroeder !
Unul "prieten" al lui Nastase & Co, celalalt prieten al lui Putin !
Daca astazi s-ar vota in Italia (din pacate la noi decide Parlamentul in aceasta materie) e probabil ca si aici rezultatul ar fi NU la Constitutiea EU.
Dar acest "Nu" nu are nici o legatura cu Constitutia si continutul ei, obiect al consultari referendumului. Si analiza ca sa-mi raspunda pentru ce suntem toti fericiti ca Francezi si Olandezi au votat NU si pentru noi inca nu am citit-o.
EU asa cum e pe noi nu ne intereseaza.


PEROMANESTE
Re: Mi se pare sau ... Teoria ca teoria, dar practica ne omoara !
Datoria publica a Italiei este 103% din GDP. Guvernul de acolo n-are nici o solutie si accesul la bonduri denominate in euro (adica mai ieftine pentru italieni) poate crea o spirala ca aceea din Argentina de acum 3-4 ani.
Multam pentru corectia cu Berlusconi si euro. Daca italieni au adoptat euro caci asta era singurul mod sa-si struneasca 'debitul' e o masura numai pe jumate desteapta--cine stie cate ceva despre astea oricum nu da doua parale pe statisticile italiene din cauza ca guvernul de acolo MINTE de decenii--asa au facut si grecii sa acceada la euro si acum au trebuit sa admita minciuna (de fapt dupa olimpiada).
imi aduc aminte si de chestia cu bogatia Italiei: un alt siretlic prin care sa se arata ca bogatia intangibila (venind din trecutu-i cultural-istoric) a Italiei i-ar da dreptul la deficite mai mari decat cele calculate cu regulile contabile comunitare. In alte cuvinte Viviana, se strange latzul si minunata Italie poate ca ar face bine sa se inspire de la spanioli cu imigratia--dupa aceea insa, ar face bine sa se inspire numai o tzara de la americani ;-)



Viviana (...@hotmail.it)
Re: Mi se pare sau ... Teoria ca teoria, dar practica ne omoara !
Eu nu vorbeam de Bogatia artistica. Cat crezi ca conteaza asa ceva in Bursa?
Tu nu numai - nu stii despre ce vorbesti - dar esti si plin de prejuditii ...
Bond mai ieftin? Adica? Despre ce vorbesti?
O data un pic de economie politica in Romania se studia imi spune cineva, aici langa mine ... tu nu ai fost la scoala pe acolo?
Pe acest blog cei mai batrani cand vorbesc de italieni folosesc cuvantul "macaroni". Se vede ca esti mai tanar pentru ca folosesti cuvantu "spaghetti" dar nu e suficient sa-ti "dai cu parerea"!
Pot sa-ti spun ca in USA numai cine e puturos nu izbuteste sa aiba o viata decenta dar eu Italia o vreau asa cum e cu toate defectele si frumusetile ei.
La fel si Europa.


PEROMANESTE
La 2005-06-02 19:07:33, Viviana a scris:

> Eu nu vorbeam de Bogatia artistica.

exact asta a facut guvernul vostru pentru a incerca sa umfle GDP-ul si deci sa aiba dreptul la un deficit mai mare

>Cat crezi ca conteaza asa ceva in
> Bursa?
> Tu nu numai - nu stii despre ce vorbesti - dar esti si plin de
> prejuditii ...
> Bond mai ieftin? Adica? Despre ce vorbesti?

italia si-a redus riscul de tara atunci cand imprumuta bani prin emisiune de bonduri /obligatiuni de stat denominate in euro. ca deh, in spatele alora sta banca europeana si nu cea a italiei

> O data un pic de economie politica in Romania se studia imi spune
> cineva, aici langa mine ... tu nu ai fost la scoala pe acolo?

spune-i aluia de langa tine ca te-a ales frumoasa de tot! cat despre ce am studiat la scoala hai sa spunem ca nu-mi petreceam timpul cu pixul in gura gandindu-ma la alain delon sau evadatul ;-)

> Pe acest blog cei mai batrani cand vorbesc de italieni folosesc
> cuvantul "macaroni". Se vede ca esti mai tanar pentru ca
> folosesti cuvantu "spaghetti" dar nu e suficient sa-ti
> "dai cu parerea"!

nu te inteleg dar e ok inca

> Pot sa-ti spun ca in USA numai cine e puturos nu izbuteste sa aiba o
> viata decenta dar eu Italia o vreau asa cum e cu toate defectele si
> frumusetile ei.
> La fel si Europa.

uf, mi-a fost teama ca ai sa spui ceva la incheiere... mi-a trecut


Marius Adrian Porojnicu din Craiova (...@rdslink.ro)
Avort
"Nasterea" UE,prilej lung de discutii.....chiar mult prea lung ! Tre' sa recunoastem ca toti eram cu sufletu'n gat,asteptand miracolu' nasterii !
Restrictii peste restrictii,moneda noua,un Parlament European,....ce mai {!} ,tot tacamu' Stupoare, insa,UE e contestata dur chiar din centru' ei ! Fara constitutie, UE , nu exista, deci, nu mai putem discuta de nasterea UE, ci , mai degraba de avortarea UE

PEROMANESTE
Re: Avort / Terminologie + schadenfreude
Marius, sper sa nu te superi prea tare daca te intreb: ce ti se pare avortat in Uniune? Ca s-au grabit e una, daca l-ai intreba pe doctoru' asta se cheama la 7 luni, dar avort nu este.
Unde mai pui, noi romanii ne-am jertfit atata fara certitudinea datei de admitere; sa nu genereze cumva aceasta incertitudine o reactie de genul 'strgurii sunt acri'?



edith
Re: exit poll - 63% contra constitutiei.
La 2005-06-02 00:22:30, cosor ion a scris:

> La 2005-06-01 23:35:35, synd a scris:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > sa avem si o clauza prin care sa renuntam la jug
> atunci cind vrem,satui de binele din UE.
>
Constitutia prevede posibilitatea de retragere voluntara din UE. Nu e cazul tratatelor actualmente in vigoare, mute la acest subiect.
Nu e nici o legatura intre constitutie si aderarea Turciei.Cit despre binefacerile UE, acestea sint reale, dar un subiect extrem de complex.
Mi se pare stupid anti-americanismul afisat de multi francezi, dar cind e vorba de UE,cred ca nici conationalii mei din SUA nu prea pricep problema.




PEROMANESTE
Re: exit poll - 63% contra constitutiei./Edith
Edith, am facut acum 2 zile o referinta la cum Turcia si (mai ales) tarile mici si dezvoltate ale UE si-au gasit constitutia asta ca teren de disputa. E adevarat ca nu spune nimic, dar le ia si dreptul celor mici de a refuza intrarea Turciei in Uniune.
Pe de alta parte, o constitutie ar trebui sa fie pe intelesul tuturor (chiar si al celor congenital contra), iar cea in discutie numai asta nu e. Tot in interventiile peromaneste de aici, am spus ca aceasta constitutie (ca si euro) este calul pus de catre elitele politice ale Uniunii inaintea carutei votului popular.


edith
Re: exit poll - 63% contra constitutiei./Edith
La 2005-06-02 01:34:25, flachi a scris:
>Marturisesc ca nu sint mare specialista in domeniu. Dar totusi pot spune ca aderarea unei tari la UE depinde de votul unanim al Consiliului European, dupa avizul comisiei si parlamentului.Unanimitate prevazuta si de tratatele in vigoare si de constitutie. Deci este suficient ca un singur stat sa se opuna.

De asemeni, in situatia actuala aderarea presupune caracterul european al statului postulant. Constitutia spune si ea "orice stat european care doreste sa devina membru al UE, isi trimite cererea consiliului european". E indoielnic ca Turcia este un stat european. Dar prostia a fost facuta in 1999 cind Consiliul european a acceptat ca Turcia sa fie admisa drept candidata la adeziune. Deci zarurile au fost aruncate acum sase ani , si abia acum se trezesc unii sa gaseasca pretext in asta pentru a zice non. Altfel toata lumea este de acord cu faptul ca negocierile cu Turcia, cind vor fi pornite, trebuie impinse pina la calendele grecesti.

Sint de acord cu dumneavoastra cind spuneti ca constitutia nu este pe intelesul tuturor. Cred ca problema rezulta din faptul ca este un act care se vrea unificator si cumva clarificator al actelor precedente. Adica daca nu pricepi dreptul european preexistent, cit se poate de indigest, e greu sa pricepi constitutia. Sint dezamagita de votul francez, motivat mai ales de probleme interne,dar este demonstratia ca desi legislatia franceza este
de ani si ani 80 % europeana, cetateanul francez nu pricepe integrarea europeana si continua sa creada ca Franta mai este un model pentru cineva.



PEROMANESTE
Re: exit poll - 63% contra constitutiei./Edith
La 2005-06-02 03:15:17, edith a scris:

> La 2005-06-02 01:34:25, flachi a scris:
>
> >Marturisesc ca nu sint mare specialista in domeniu. Dar totusi pot spune ca aderarea unei tari la UE depinde de votul unanim al Consiliului European, dupa avizul comisiei si parlamentului.Unanimitate prevazuta si de tratatele in vigoare si de constitutie. Deci este suficient ca un singur stat sa se opuna.

Edith, tocmai in acest paragraf pui punctul pe "i". Noua constitutie nu mai cere unanimitatea. Pe de-o parte e firesc sa propuna asa ceva din moment ce vocile au devenit foarte multe si diferite. Pe de alta, tari ca Olanda sau cele scandinave ar avea de pierdut in fata Poloniei sau Romaniei. "Solutia' pe care o vad e o Uniune in mai multe cercuri/categorii. Stiu ca suna nedemocratic insa cum altfel se poate evita dezintegrarea?

Hai sa mai spunem una: Romaniei, odata intrata in Uniune, i-ar fi mai bine daca s-ar integra treptat si in felul asta sa negocieze punct cu punct cerintele europene. Exemplul britanic mi se pare aplicabil si la Romania. Numai ca asta ar cere leadership la Bucuresti si nu se vede venind prea mult cu exceptia Cotrocenilor. Peste alet 6 luni vom (putea) incepe sa spunem si ce Presedinte avem...

>
> De asemeni, in situatia actuala aderarea presupune caracterul
> european al statului postulant. Constitutia spune si ea "orice
> stat european care doreste sa devina membru al UE, isi trimite
> cererea consiliului european". E indoielnic ca Turcia este un
> stat european. Dar prostia a fost facuta in 1999 cind Consiliul
> european a acceptat ca Turcia sa fie admisa drept candidata la
> adeziune. Deci zarurile au fost aruncate acum sase ani , si abia acum
> se trezesc unii sa gaseasca pretext in asta pentru a zice non. Altfel
> toata lumea este de acord cu faptul ca negocierile cu Turcia, cind vor
> fi pornite, trebuie impinse pina la calendele grecesti.

Nu este nici fair si USA/UK (+ cativa sateliti 'nou' europeni) nu vor lasa lucrurile sa taragane prea mult. Franta si Germania ar fi avut nevoie de aceasta constitutie sa-i flituiasca pe anglo-saxoni (singurul beneficiu pe care l-au urmarit acele elite). In lipsa ei (lucru incert deocamdata) le va ramane optiunea 'nedemocratica' de care am discutat deja.

>
> Sint de acord cu dumneavoastra cind spuneti ca constitutia nu este pe
> intelesul tuturor. Cred ca problema rezulta din faptul ca este un act
> care se vrea unificator si cumva clarificator al actelor precedente.
> Adica daca nu pricepi dreptul european preexistent, cit se poate de
> indigest, e greu sa pricepi constitutia.

Opinez ca politicienii, simtind ca le-o ia pamantul la fuga de sub picioare, au incercat sa consfinteasca in legea fundamentala unele din realizarile lor birocratice. Pana la urma, rezultatul unor birocrati marunti, depasiti de istorie, dar indragostiti lulea de mersul lucrurilor la Bruxelles....

> Sint dezamagita de votul
> francez, motivat mai ales de probleme interne,dar este demonstratia
> ca desi legislatia franceza este
> de ani si ani 80 % europeana, cetateanul francez nu pricepe
> integrarea europeana si continua sa creada ca Franta mai este un
> model pentru cineva.

Daca ne-ai spune ceva despre tine, ne-ai ajuta sa-ti intelegem dezamagirea. Cum se spune: La liberte n'a pas de prix!






edith
Re: exit poll - 63% contra constitutiei.
La 2005-06-02 00:22:30, cosor ion a scris:

> La 2005-06-01 23:35:35, synd a scris:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > sa avem si o clauza prin care sa renuntam la jug
> atunci cind vrem,satui de binele din UE.
>
Constitutia prevede posibilitatea de retragere voluntara din UE. Nu e cazul tratatelor actualmente in vigoare, mute la acest subiect.
Nu e nici o legatura intre constitutie si aderarea Turciei.Cit despre binefacerile UE, acestea sint reale, dar un subiect extrem de complex.
Mi se pare stupid anti-americanismul afisat de multi francezi, dar cind e vorba de UE,cred ca nici conationalii mei din SUA nu prea pricep problema.




PEROMANESTE
Re: exit poll - 63% contra constitutiei./Edith
Edith, am facut acum 2 zile o referinta la cum Turcia si (mai ales) tarile mici si dezvoltate ale UE si-au gasit constitutia asta ca teren de disputa. E adevarat ca nu spune nimic, dar le ia si dreptul celor mici de a refuza intrarea Turciei in Uniune.

Pe de alta parte, o constitutie ar trebui sa fie pe intelesul tuturor (chiar si al celor congenital contra), iar cea in discutie numai asta nu e. Tot in interventiile peromaneste de aici, am spus ca aceasta constitutie (ca si euro) este calul pus de catre elitele politice ale Uniunii inaintea carutei votului popular.


edith
Re: exit poll - 63% contra constitutiei./Edith
La 2005-06-02 01:34:25, flachi a scris:

>Marturisesc ca nu sint mare specialista in domeniu. Dar totusi pot spune ca aderarea unei tari la UE depinde de votul unanim al Consiliului European, dupa avizul comisiei si parlamentului.Unanimitate prevazuta si de tratatele in vigoare si de constitutie. Deci este suficient ca un singur stat sa se opuna.

De asemeni, in situatia actuala aderarea presupune caracterul european al statului postulant. Constitutia spune si ea "orice stat european care doreste sa devina membru al UE, isi trimite cererea consiliului european". E indoielnic ca Turcia este un stat european. Dar prostia a fost facuta in 1999 cind Consiliul european a acceptat ca Turcia sa fie admisa drept candidata la adeziune. Deci zarurile au fost aruncate acum sase ani , si abia acum se trezesc unii sa gaseasca pretext in asta pentru a zice non. Altfel toata lumea este de acord cu faptul ca negocierile cu Turcia, cind vor fi pornite, trebuie impinse pina la calendele grecesti.

Sint de acord cu dumneavoastra cind spuneti ca constitutia nu este pe intelesul tuturor. Cred ca problema rezulta din faptul ca este un act care se vrea unificator si cumva clarificator al actelor precedente. Adica daca nu pricepi dreptul european preexistent, cit se poate de indigest, e greu sa pricepi constitutia. Sint dezamagita de votul francez, motivat mai ales de probleme interne,dar este demonstratia ca desi legislatia franceza este
de ani si ani 80 % europeana, cetateanul francez nu pricepe integrarea europeana si continua sa creada ca Franta mai este un model pentru cineva.



PEROMANESTE
Re: exit poll - 63% contra constitutiei./Edith
La 2005-06-02 03:15:17, edith a scris:

> La 2005-06-02 01:34:25, flachi a scris:
>
> >Marturisesc ca nu sint mare specialista in domeniu. Dar totusi pot spune ca aderarea unei tari la UE depinde de votul unanim al Consiliului European, dupa avizul comisiei si parlamentului.Unanimitate prevazuta si de tratatele in vigoare si de constitutie. Deci este suficient ca un singur stat sa se opuna.

Edith, tocmai in acest paragraf pui punctul pe "i". Noua constitutie nu mai cere unanimitatea. Pe de-o parte e firesc sa propuna asa ceva din moment ce vocile au devenit foarte multe si diferite. Pe de alta, tari ca Olanda sau cele scandinave ar avea de pierdut in fata Poloniei sau Romaniei. "Solutia' pe care o vad e o Uniune in mai multe cercuri/categorii. Stiu ca suna nedemocratic insa cum altfel se poate evita dezintegrarea?

Hai sa mai spunem una: Romaniei, odata intrata in Uniune, i-ar fi mai bine daca s-ar integra treptat si in felul asta sa negocieze punct cu punct cerintele europene. Exemplul britanic mi se pare aplicabil si la Romania. Numai ca asta ar cere leadership la Bucuresti si nu se vede venind prea mult cu exceptia Cotrocenilor. Peste alet 6 luni vom (putea) incepe sa spunem si ce Presedinte avem...

>
> De asemeni, in situatia actuala aderarea presupune caracterul
> european al statului postulant. Constitutia spune si ea "orice
> stat european care doreste sa devina membru al UE, isi trimite
> cererea consiliului european". E indoielnic ca Turcia este un
> stat european. Dar prostia a fost facuta in 1999 cind Consiliul
> european a acceptat ca Turcia sa fie admisa drept candidata la
> adeziune. Deci zarurile au fost aruncate acum sase ani , si abia acum
> se trezesc unii sa gaseasca pretext in asta pentru a zice non. Altfel
> toata lumea este de acord cu faptul ca negocierile cu Turcia, cind vor
> fi pornite, trebuie impinse pina la calendele grecesti.

Nu este nici fair si USA/UK (+ cativa sateliti 'nou' europeni) nu vor lasa lucrurile sa taragane prea mult. Franta si Germania ar fi avut nevoie de aceasta constitutie sa-i flituiasca pe anglo-saxoni (singurul beneficiu pe care l-au urmarit acele elite). In lipsa ei (lucru incert deocamdata) le va ramane optiunea 'nedemocratica' de care am discutat deja.

>
> Sint de acord cu dumneavoastra cind spuneti ca constitutia nu este pe
> intelesul tuturor. Cred ca problema rezulta din faptul ca este un act
> care se vrea unificator si cumva clarificator al actelor precedente.
> Adica daca nu pricepi dreptul european preexistent, cit se poate de
> indigest, e greu sa pricepi constitutia.

Opinez ca politicienii, simtind ca le-o ia pamantul la fuga de sub picioare, au incercat sa consfinteasca in legea fundamentala unele din realizarile lor birocratice. Pana la urma, rezultatul unor birocrati marunti, depasiti de istorie, dar indragostiti lulea de mersul lucrurilor la Bruxelles....

> Sint dezamagita de votul
> francez, motivat mai ales de probleme interne,dar este demonstratia
> ca desi legislatia franceza este
> de ani si ani 80 % europeana, cetateanul francez nu pricepe
> integrarea europeana si continua sa creada ca Franta mai este un
> model pentru cineva.

Daca ne-ai spune ceva despre tine, ne-ai ajuta sa-ti intelegem dezamagirea. Cum se spune: La liberte n'a pas de prix!




PEROMANESTE

Din alte motive decat cele ale francezilor...
toate indicatiile sunt ca olandezii vor spune de asemenea nu. De fapt, nu-ul olandez ar avea de-a face cu:
1) Teama de o Europa centralizata in care glasul olandez se va pierde cu totul la Bruxelles. De exemplu, Franta si Germania, prin ignorarea tratatului de stabilitate euro, deja dau peste nas tarilor mici ca Olanda, intr-o Europa si mai centralizata Olandei i se va lua si dreptul pe care il are acum sa riposteze.
2) Intr-o Europa centralizata, Olanda valoreaza mai putin decat Polonia si Turcia daca s-ar ajunge pana acolo. De fapt, Turcia ar valora mai mult si decat Germania. Constitutia europeana nu spune ca Turcia va fi integrata dar nici nu interzice acest lucru. Precaut pentru votantul vestic este sa nu cedeze atata suveranitate pentru o abstractie.




roy (...@hotmail.com)
Data: 2005-05-31 06:41:57 , IP: 213.8.30...
Re: Din alte motive decat cele ale francezilor...
La punctul 2 ai dat-o in bara. Ca si olandezii, marea majoritate a francezilor nu-i vor pe turci in EU. Asta este unul din motivele votului francez.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

La 2005-05-31 04:20:03, flachi a scris:

> toate indicatiile sunt ca olandezii vor spune de asemenea nu. De fapt,
> nu-ul olandez ar avea de-a face cu:
> 1) Teama de o Europa centralizata in care glasul olandez se va pierde
> cu totul la Bruxelles. De exemplu, Franta si Germania, prin ignorarea
> tratatului de stabilitate euro, deja dau peste nas tarilor mici ca
> Olanda, intr-o Europa si mai centralizata Olandei i se va lua si
> dreptul pe care il are acum sa riposteze.
> 2) Intr-o Europa centralizata, Olanda valoreaza mai putin decat
> Polonia si Turcia daca s-ar ajunge pana acolo. De fapt, Turcia ar
> valora mai mult si decat Germania. Constitutia europeana nu spune ca
> Turcia va fi integrata dar nici nu interzice acest lucru. Precaut
> pentru votantul vestic este sa nu cedeze atata suveranitate pentru o
> abstractie.
>
> peromaneste.com
>

PEROMANESTE
Re: Din alte motive decat cele ale francezilor...
Roy, de acord si nu cu totul. Spre deosebire de francezi, olandezii sunt mult mai vocali pe chestia turceasca. In plus, daca dintr-o consitutie "schioapa" ca aceea propusa acum Franta si statele mari au ceva de castigat, cele mici care sunt net donoare la bugetul european au numai de pierdut.


Bumerang din Frankfurt (...@gmx.de)
Europa nu a murit. Din contra!
Aceasta frana pusa de francezi si olandezi, care nu are nici legatura si nici efect pozitiv asupra cauzelor care au dus la un NU la cele doua referendumuri, va duce la trezirea guvernelor vest-europene, vis-a-vis de politica fiscala pe care o duc.
Au facut multe greseli la aceasta tema. Si anume s-au lasat santajate de industrie, care soma cu plecarea spre est. Lucru pe care oricum l-a facut.
Problema este impozitarea veniturilor celor bogati, care se plimba de colo colo cu domiciliul, in functie de impozitul diferitelor tari care-si fac concurenta.
Constitutzia ar fi fost primul pas. Urmatorul ar fi dus la fiscalitate unica. Combinatia ar fi dus la o pozitzie mult mai solida fata de Elvetia, Lichtenstein, Monte Carlo si alte oaze fiscale din Europa. Cai sa faci naveta de la Antile la Berlin e mai putzin credibil cand esti luat la intrebari de garda financiara! Tot asa si fata de noile membre NATO, care se dau importante si fac tot felul de conventii cu USA, numai ca sa se dea importante!
Dar se pare ca cei bogati, nu au nici un interes sa se ajunga aici...
Cineva scria mai jos, ca partidele de dreapta vor lua amploarea. O fi, dar pe o perioada scurta, caci ce promit ei nu se poate realiza din cauza legislatiei europene deja existente. Asa ca dupa ce castiga la toamna crestini-democratii in Germania de ex., peste 4 ani, care vor duce la un trai si mai prost ca astazi, socialistii vor ajunge din nou la putere. Ba mai mult, pe langa PSD-ul german se pare ca va mai apare un alt partid mult mai de stanga.
Constitutzia se va adopta atunci cand nivelul de trai va creste. Pana atunci politicienii au primit tema de casa. Cei care se grabesc sa faca coliva UE, raman cu ea nevanduta!




Bumerang
Data: 2005-06-02 16:06:07 , IP: 217.110.230...
Re: Europa nu a murit. Din contra!
La 2005-06-02 15:19:39, Mos Grigore a scris:

> La 2005-06-02 14:36:57, Bumerang a scris:
>
> > Aceasta frana pusa de francezi si olandezi, care nu are nici legatura
> > si nici efect pozitiv asupra cauzelor care au dus la un NU la cele
> > doua referendumuri, va duce la trezirea guvernelor vest-europene,
> > vis-a-vis de politica fiscala pe care o duc.
> =========================================================
> Asa e, sa micsoreze impozitele si beneficiile puturosilor. Cum vine
> aia 35 de ore saptamina lucratoare ba chiar e interzis sa muncesti
> mai mult (sindicate vezi FR), si doua luni de concediu pe an sau mai
> mult. Cine plateste toate astea? Productivitatea de rahat, crestere
> economica LULA numai lozinci socialiste!

"Putorosii" de care vorbesti tu lucreaza 8 ore s-au mai mult efectiv! Nu labareala USA. Am colegi de-i tai pe aici si-i vad cat sunt de efectivi. Ei, ca stau de dimineata pana seara in birou e altceva. Sa-i vada sefu. Pana au inteles ca aici nu-i USA, si ca sefu vrea rezultate nu ore!
In al doilea rand tot acesti "puturosi" i-si lasa jumate din salar la stat! Pe cand cei cu venituri uriase, cu tot cu impozitul de 50%, platesc efectiv vreo 20-30% dupa ce i-si baga si soacra la cheltueli. Iar banii negrii stau bine merci prin Lichtenstein!

> > Au facut multe greseli la aceasta tema. Si anume s-au lasat santajate
> > de industrie, care soma cu plecarea spre est. Lucru pe care oricum
> > l-a facut.
> =========================================================
> Adica CUM? Aici suni ca un agitator comunist!

Adica i-au lins sin fund pe Industriasi in speranta ca nu vor pleca. Si tot degeaba. Nu e vina Industriasilor. Si eu faceam la fel. E vina celora care au ridicat costurile muncii, singurul cal de care se poate trage fara urmari fiind angajatul. El nu poate sa bage mai nimic la cheltueli s-au sa faca un SRL in Monaco al carui angjat sa fie el insusi, si care SRL sa fac contracte cu fabrica unde lucreaza. Inginerie care se practica de firme aprope fara limita.

> > Problema este impozitarea veniturilor celor bogati, care se plimba de
> > colo colo cu domiciliul, in functie de impozitul diferitelor tari
> > care-si fac concurenta.
> =========================================================
>
> Asta E SOLUTIA; TOT BOGATII nu puturosii! PARCA ASA ZICEA SI TATUCUL
> LENIN/STALIN!

Tatucu Stalin avea dreptate in privinta asta. Din pacate una a zis si alta a facut.
Iar adevaratii puturosi sunt putzini, sa sti si tu. Daca ai vrea sa dai de lucru peste noapte la 4 Mio de someri, chiar amenintandui cu biciul, une i-ai duce?? Ca nu-i vrea nimeni! Tu vrei metoda USA. Le iei si painea de la gura, dupa care jumate devin infractori pe care-i bagi la zdup (voi 2 Mio de detinutzi aveti, stiai?), si restul lucreaza prin pub-uri fara salar, traind doar din bacsis!


> > Constitutzia ar fi fost primul pas. Urmatorul ar fi dus la fiscalitate
> > unica. Combinatia ar fi dus la o pozitzie mult mai solida fata de
> > Elvetia, Lichtenstein, Monte Carlo si alte oaze fiscale din Europa.
> > Cai sa faci naveta de la Antile la Berlin e mai putzin credibil cand
> > esti luat la intrebari de garda financiara! Tot asa si fata de noile
> > membre NATO, care se dau importante si fac tot felul de conventii cu
> > USA, numai ca sa se dea importante!
> > Dar se pare ca cei bogati, nu au nici un interes sa se ajunga aici...
> > Cineva scria mai jos, ca partidele de dreapta vor lua amploarea. O fi,
> > dar pe o perioada scurta, caci ce promit ei nu se poate realiza din
> > cauza legislatiei europene deja existente. Asa ca dupa ce castiga la
> > toamna crestini-democratii in Germania de ex., peste 4 ani, care vor
> > duce la un trai si mai prost ca astazi, socialistii vor ajunge din
> > nou la putere. Ba mai mult, pe langa PSD-ul german se pare ca va mai
> > apare un alt partid mult mai de stanga.
> > Constitutzia se va adopta atunci cand nivelul de trai va creste. Pana
> > atunci politicienii au primit tema de casa. Cei care se grabesc sa
> > faca coliva UE, raman cu ea nevanduta!
> >
> =========================================================
>
> Ai dreptate ca Europa nu e moarta fara constitutie decit ca habar nu
> ai dece! E vorba de piata comuna aia tine EU si fara constitutie!

Bravo! Pai piata unica este primul pas. Dupa aceea urmeaza politica si fiscalitaea unica. Nu era cazul sa ma a refer la ceva existent.

> PS. las-o balta cu constiinta si alte LOZINCI COMUNISTE care ti-au
> intrat in piele definitiv!
>

Hai sa zicem ca de unele afirmatii pe care tu le categorizezi ca fiind lozinci comuniste mai putem discuta. Dar de constiinta? Pai tu din tara cea mai cea si cea mai democrata invoci constiinta ca fiind o piedica in dezvoltare?
Mai dat gata! Ca de multe ori dealtfel....


PEROMANESTE
Re: Europa nu a murit. Din contra!/Bumerang
Bumerang, vad ca scrii din Frankfurt si o faci cu lux de amanunte fiscale (cum altfel, venind din capitala financiar-bancara a mijlocului de continent?). Problema celor bogati care se 'fofileaza' si a constitutiei care incearca unificarea fiscala devine deja foarte delicata. Aduci in dicutie 'constiinta' insa cei cu bani nu o au in felul in care amploaiatul comun o intelege. Am bani multi si vreau sa-i inmultesc/pastrez e mai degraba felul in care opereaza bogatii. Oricum, da o fuga pana la http://peromaneste.blogspot.com si cauta titlul asta: "Atelier De Cannes" de Pablo Picasso . Este despre o 'mazgalitura' semnata Picasso (si autentificata de fi-sa) pe care se cer 130000 de 'dulai' americani.

Sa-mi fie permisa (si daca nu scuze anticipate) urmatoarea observatie: Presupun ca ai de-a face cu partea tehnica/calculatoarele din vreo institutie financiara caci altfel ai fi vazut ca societatile care se pun prea de-a curmezisul in calea celor cu banii pierd!

Sa traim bine, peromaneste!

La 2005-06-02 14:36:57, Bumerang a scris:

> Aceasta frana pusa de francezi si olandezi, care nu are nici legatura
> si nici efect pozitiv asupra cauzelor care au dus la un NU la cele
> doua referendumuri, va duce la trezirea guvernelor vest-europene,
> vis-a-vis de politica fiscala pe care o duc.
> Au facut multe greseli la aceasta tema. Si anume s-au lasat santajate
> de industrie, care soma cu plecarea spre est. Lucru pe care oricum
> l-a facut.
> Problema este impozitarea veniturilor celor bogati, care se plimba de
> colo colo cu domiciliul, in functie de impozitul diferitelor tari
> care-si fac concurenta.
> Constitutzia ar fi fost primul pas. Urmatorul ar fi dus la fiscalitate
> unica. Combinatia ar fi dus la o pozitzie mult mai solida fata de
> Elvetia, Lichtenstein, Monte Carlo si alte oaze fiscale din Europa.
> Cai sa faci naveta de la Antile la Berlin e mai putzin credibil cand
> esti luat la intrebari de garda financiara! Tot asa si fata de noile
> membre NATO, care se dau importante si fac tot felul de conventii cu
> USA, numai ca sa se dea importante!
> Dar se pare ca cei bogati, nu au nici un interes sa se ajunga aici...
> Cineva scria mai jos, ca partidele de dreapta vor lua amploarea. O fi,
> dar pe o perioada scurta, caci ce promit ei nu se poate realiza din
> cauza legislatiei europene deja existente. Asa ca dupa ce castiga la
> toamna crestini-democratii in Germania de ex., peste 4 ani, care vor
> duce la un trai si mai prost ca astazi, socialistii vor ajunge din
> nou la putere. Ba mai mult, pe langa PSD-ul german se pare ca va mai
> apare un alt partid mult mai de stanga.
> Constitutzia se va adopta atunci cand nivelul de trai va creste. Pana
> atunci politicienii au primit tema de casa. Cei care se grabesc sa
> faca coliva UE, raman cu ea nevanduta!
>

peromaneste spunea...

Daca acest proiect constitutional esueaza, UE se va transforma intr-o organizatie in care egalitarianismul de acum va putea fi inlocuit cu o ierarhie: cine plateste mai mult are si privilegii mai multe/mari. Mai ales in acest caz, Romania ar face bine sa inteleaga repede care i-ar fi avantajele unei ascensiuni graduale si sa le exploateze/negocieze la maximum.

un cititor peromanete spunea...

Cronica unui esec anuntat
Liviu Antonesei

Ca eurosceptic si proamerican declarat, probabil ca as avea motive de bucurie dupa esecul referendumului pentru Constitutia Europeana din Franta, urmat de esecul celui consultativ din Olanda. Consultativ, dar de care guvernul olandez va tine seama!

Adevarul este ca, decit sa ma bucur, prefer sa incerc sa inteleg de ce s-a intimplat asta si care vor fi consecintele asupra procesului de integrare a Romaniei.

Scurt spus, esecul, anuntat de altfel, se datoreaza unui cumul de factori – aroganta birocratiei de la Bruxelles, care crede ca poate face si desface pe deasupra popoarelor europene pe care catadicseste sa le consulte in ultima clipa, este doar unul. Se adauga monstruozitatea documentului insusi, ale carui peste 300 de pagini au descurajat imensa masa a votantilor. De altfel, e stilul Bruxelles-ului – documente imense, care incearca sa prevada tot. Ca Tratatul de aderare a Romaniei si Bulgariei are peste 800 de pagini, mai treaca-mearga, ca e vorba de tari „suspecte“, dar o Constitutie, fie si europeana, de dimensiunile acestea e pura nebunie. Sa amintesc dimensiunile celei americane, redusa la prevederile fundamentale? Asa ca francezul si olandezul, decit sa-si piarda vremea cu „ceaslovul european“, au preferat sa fie atenti la pericolul „electricianului polonez“, deja acolo!, ori al „zidarului roman“, tot acolo, chiar daca nu tocmai legal. Cetateanul european care a votat „contra“ a facut-o nu atit impotriva ideii Europei unite, desi, pentru unii, pierderea unor atribute ale suveranitatii nationale chiar e o pierdere, cit mai ales cu gindul la avantajele pe cale de a se pierde prin extindere – concurenta miinii de lucru mai ieftine din Est, renuntarea la unele excese ale „statului social“, costurile uriase ale ultimului val al integrarii si cele calculate pentru viitorul val. Prin urmare, cetateanul-contra a realizat ca, dincolo de fudulia Europei Mari, integrarea noilor membri il costa!

Or, aceste costuri trebuie suportate de o Europa intr-o forma economica precara, situata cu decenii in urma Statelor Unite la majoritatea indicatorilor, conform studiului Eurochambres pe care l-am comentat aici. Respingerea a fost esential economica, insa doar subsidiar politica.

Nebunia este ca solutia relansarii economice a Europei consta nu in inchiderea sa, ci tocmai in extindere. Largirea pietelor este un atu. Forta de munca mai ieftina din Est, la fel. Ritmurile de crestere mai ridicate de aici, de asemenea. Doar ca asta presupune renuntarea la unele cistiguri „istorice“ ale vesticilor! Nimeni nu renunta la avantaje de bunavoie – cetatenii au dreptate! Vinovate de esec sint administratia UE si cele nationale. Nu au reusit sa gaseasca tonul prin care sa convinga ca avantajele bat dezavantajele si ca solutia e extinderea, nu inchiderea usilor. Ce va fi cu Romania? Data viitoare!
Liviu Antonesei este profesor la Universitatea din Iasi.

Refuznicii

Zoe PETRE


Au dreptate aceia dintre comentatori care descifreaza votul negativ al Frantei - acum, mai abitir chiar, si al Olandei - ca pe o aspiratie catre un alt fel de Europa mai degraba decat ca pe un refuz efectiv al Europei largite. Nici tie, iubite cetitoriule, nu ti-ar fi la indemana sa aprobi o constitutie cat o carte de telefon. Principala concluzie a recentelor evenimente este cea formulata de presedintele ceh Vaclav Klaus: referendumul ilustreaza prapastia care desparte elita politica europeana de cetatenii Uniunii. Prea adesea constatam ca aristocratii de la Bruxelles si-au creat o limba europeana de lemn, enigmatica si absconsa, ca sa nu-i dam dreptate lui Klaus. Birocratii Uniunii comunica prost nu fiindca ar fi, ci fiindca nutresc convingerea - nemarturisita nici macar fata de propriile constiinte - ca nu au de ce sa comunice: uneori nici macar cu guvernele tarilor membre, si oricum cu cetatenii Europei. Drept care, nici cetatenii nu mai vor sa comunice cu ei.

Rationalitatea unora din refuznicii francezi sau olandezi nu inseamna totusi ca toate aceste NU-uri se insumeaza egal intr-o atitudine rationala pentru un alt fel de Europa. Un sondaj IPSOS dupa votul din Franta a aratat ca, la extremele spectrului politic, comunistii au votat in proportie de 98% NU (dovedind a nu stiu cata oara ca unitatea europeana e antonimul perfect al internationalismului proletar) iar membrii Frontului National au fost ceva mai permisivi: 93%. Refuzul franco-olandez dovedeste ca opinia publica din tarile Uniunii e ingrijorata de foarte multe perspective, intre care si cea a largirii Uniunii, dar e departe de a fi dominata de aceasta problema, cum s-a afirmat in media noastra atat de frecvent si de energic in ultimele zile. Aici, punctul nevralgic nu e insa aderarea Romaniei si Bulgariei, ci deschiderea, in toamna, a negocierilor cu Turcia. Totusi, tema Ñinstalatorului polonez" care fura locul de munca al instalatorlui francez sau olandez, platit dublu, nu e de neglijat.

Javier Solana a comparat, amar, votul francez cu Razboiul de Secesiune din Statele Unite, grabindu-se sa sublinieze ca exista totusi o diferenta esentiala: e o secesiune fara razboi. Comentatorii au fost surprinsi de aceasta definire atat de umila a celui mai mic numitor comun european, uitand, dupa 50 de ani de prosperitate si constructie laborioasa a convergentei institutionale a Uniunii, ca aceasta se nastea intr-o Europa inca fumeganda cu scopul precis de a impiedica o noua conflagratie. Sub acest aspect, minimal desigur, dar cat de esential, Uniunea continua, chiar si dupa refuzul franco-olandez, sa fie Ña succes story".

Nimeni nu stie insa in acest moment cum s-ar putea iesi din criza respingerii Constitutiei. Va trebui oricum ca euro-entuziastii de pretutindeni sa urmeze exemplul politicienilor irlandezi, care, dupa esecul primului referendum asupra tratatului de la Maastricht, si-au luat fiecare bastonul de pelerin si au batut vreme de un an intreaga tara explicand ce este Uniunea Europeana, dupa care, in 2002, cand s-a repetat consultarea, au obtinut o sustinere de peste 60%: cam cat proportia de NU in Olanda. Fara refacerea legaturii vitale intre sfera politicului si cetateni, Uniunea Europeana - si in genere politicul - nu au multe sperante de viitor.

Refuzul european are consecinte directe in Romania. Raspunsul autoritatilor - presedinte, Guvern, partide politice - greseste invers fata de cel al media, limitandu-se la aspectele formale. Cele cateva fraze lenifiante au un iz cam pedeserist fiindca ocolesc problema de fond pe care media o dramatizeaza in exces. De acord, tratatul de aderare a Romaniei si Bulgariei deriva din Tratatul de la Nisa, care, spre deosebire de cel constitutional, acum caduc, e inca in vigoare. Tratatul de aderare are o anume forta cominatorie: a fost aprobat de Parlamentul European si semnat de toate guvernele tarilor membre. Tratatul trebuie totusi sa mai fie ratificat de un numar semnificativ de parlamente nationale, si exemplul Germaniei, unde opozitia crestin-democrata si-a inceput campania electorala pe seama noastra, ne arata ca procesul nu e deloc formal. S-ar putea ca aplicarea clauzei de salvgardare pentru Romania si Bulgaria sa fie cel mai mic sacrificiu intr-o negociere implicita, dar vitala, cu cetatenii marilor state membre: severitatea Bruxelles-ului ar da un semnal linistitor fara a periclita pe termen lung marele proiect al Marii Europe.

Si presedintele, si Guvernul, au interesul vital ca o eventuala aplicare a clauzei de salvgardare sa nu li se prabuseasca pe neasteptate in cap, ca galilor cerul: guvernul n-ar avea nici o scapare, dar nici presedintele, oricat s-ar stradui sa arunce exclusiv pe seama Guverului acest esec, nu poate cadea, cum obisnuieste, in picioare. In schimb, romanii au toate sansele sa recada in placutul sindrom national de victima a istoriei si de popor mic si fara noroc.

Iata de ce euro-entuziastii nostri politicieni - si chiar euro-scepticul nostru presedinte - ar fi trebuit inca de alaltaieri sa-si ia desaga la spinare si bastonul de pelerin, ca irlandezii, si sa bata drumurile Patriei ca sa explice romanilor ce se intampla. Da, s-ar putea sa ni se aplice fara prea mare vina din partea noastra (aici si acum) clauza de salvgardare. Dar, in felul nostru, am fost si noi niste refuznici, mai indarjiti decat francezii si mult mai numerosi decat olandezii: si cand ne-am batut cu concetatenii nostri la Targu Mures si in Piata Universitatii (mai sunt doar zece zile pana la a 15-a aniversare a neuitatei mineriade), si cand ne-am tot gandit si razgandit - o fi ea buna proprietatea privata, o fi rea? - si cand am riscat sa avem un presedinte ca Vadim, si cand ne-am incapatanat sa avem un presedinte ca Iliescu. Suntem niste refuznici sui-generis prin lentoarea sincopata cu care ne adaptam la regulile economiei profitabile si ale vietii civilizate indeobste. Ar trebui sa intelegem macar acum ca, daca nu ne-am grabit cine stie ce sa prindem rapidul integrarii, avem noroc, nu ghinion, daca mai e si un personal de noapte.

luptatoarea pentru pace spunea...

Radu Dragan
Eminenta cenusie si GLOATA

Constitutia a fost scrisa de "eminenta cenusie a europei de snobii ei de educatii si civilizatii europei"!
Si GLOATA uite ca nu vrea sa o voteze!
Nimeni nu a consultat GLOATA!
O alta problema e socialismul ala nenorocit care a naucit mintile si pe rin si pe sena! Europa s-a civilizat prin Crestinism, Filozofie, si Capitalism! Ori lucrurile astea nu sunt cuprinse in noua constitutie si bine ca n-au votat-o!
S-auzim numai de bine!

peromaneste spunea...

Pentru cei care ati ajuns pana aici, remarcati grupurile peromaneste la yahoo si google.

Pentru cei care nu stiu de ele, iata-le:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/peromaneste/
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/peromaneste

peromaneste spunea...

Da luptatoareo pentru pace, unora inca le-ar place sa se stie ca Europa a fost si rezultatul a doua mii de ani de crestinatate, iar acestia, daca ar fi intrebati, probabil ca ar vota impotriva constitutiei in discutie. Eurocratii insa mizeaza pe faptul ca in general lumea din vestul european merge foarte rar la biserica, iar omisiunea Europei crestine nu-i deranjeaza.

luptatoarea pentru pace said...

Radu Dragan
Eminenta cenusie si GLOATA

Constitutia a fost scrisa de "eminenta cenusie a europei de snobii ei de educatii si civilizatii europei"!
Si GLOATA uite ca nu vrea sa o voteze!
Nimeni nu a consultat GLOATA!
O alta problema e socialismul ala nenorocit care a naucit mintile si pe rin si pe sena! Europa s-a civilizat prin Crestinism, Filozofie, si Capitalism! Ori lucrurile astea nu sunt cuprinse in noua constitutie si bine ca n-au votat-o!
S-auzim numai de bine!

peromaneste spunea...

SPIEGEL ONLINE - June 3, 2005, 03:24 PM
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,358905,00.html
The Future of the European Union

German Foreign Minister Fischer Has a Plan

Is Europe in a crisis? No, says German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, the EU is not about to collapse. He says it's time for the electorate to vote on Europe-wide candidates running on Europe-wide issues. But it won't be easy. "You have to deal with the resistance of centuries," he says.



AP
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer spoke at the American Academy in Berlin on Thursday evening.
Following the failed European constitution referenda in both France and Holland this week, people across the continent are wondering, "What next for the EU?" Concrete proposals are, for the moment, few and far between. But on Thursday evening at the American Academy, located on the beautiful shores of Lake Wannsee in Berlin, German Foreign Minister and EU cheerleader Joschka Fischer, offered his thoughts on the meaning of the No votes and his ideas for a possible way forward. Business as usual, he says, is not an option. Here, a few excerpts from his comments:

On the failure of the referendum in France:

"Definitely it's a setback.... If you look to the reasons for the setback (it is clear that) there is a gap between the traditional nation states and the project of European development. Europe wasn't founded by a democratic revolution. Rather Europe was based on the experience of terrible wars and on the collapse of the old European system. And it was based on the ideas and the policies of the political elites.

"If you look to the decision in France, it was mostly about domestic policies. And if you look to the agenda of the No vote, it's caught in a direct contradiction because essentially the No vote defended the Treaty of Nice.... But it was more about emotional (factors) -- and I don't mean irrational; a lot of these emotions are very rational. But this fear is a combination of social issues -- the fear of personal deprivation..., the fear of job loss via the threat to the labor market from the outside -- and it is not driven by enlargement policy. Rather, it is the result of (the collapse of communism in 1989) and the economic upheaval that followed."

On a possible way forward:

"In the mid-term perspective I'm quite optimistic. The big question is how can you fill the gap.... It must be filled by political structures.... The real positive and new experience in the French campaign was that it was a European campaign.... The French (referendum) campaign was the first time that I was really campaigning for Europe.

"And such a model (of campaigning for Europe) can work. This would mean that the next time the European Parliament is up for election, we have to raise issues not on a national level, but we have to form Europe-wide platforms created by European-wide parties. And we have to run with candidates representing not national programs, but European programs. I am not talking about a pie-in-the-sky European program with nice ideas that nobody is really interested in. But they have to have a substance. What about social justice in the European Union? What about the free market? What does it mean in France, in Germany, in Poland, in Lithuania, in Slovenia, in Portugal? And then (we have to) present candidates for the job for the president of the Commission and they must run for that position. Without that, I don't believe we can really bridge the gap between the project of the elites and the reality of the people."

On the difficulties faced by the European project:



DPA
The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism presented the EU with a whole new set of challenges, says Fischer.
"When the Wall came down, it created a new social and economic landscape in Europe. We are faced with the contradiction that very conservative and rich societies, built over decades, have created a beautiful house called the European Union. But the back of the house was the Wall. When the Mediterraneans knocked at the door ... we built some very beautiful new additions to this family house. And suddenly the Wall came down and this very conservative EU Europe -- and I don't mean politically conservative -- saw the poorer part of the family waiting on the other side. We witnessed a very silent revolution that had to be integrated into the very conservative structures and realities of Western Europe....

"We are talking about 1,000 years of European history. We are talking about different languages, different cultures. We are talking about over 500 million people. We are talking about very successful nation states and nation states with terrible histories like my own country. We are talking about the old European state system with its prejudices, fears, concerns, and very different traditions. To bring that together, you have to deal with the resistance of centuries....

"This is the first time in German history that we are embedded in a peaceful Europe without any threat from outside and without threats from us to our neighbors. It's the first time that we are in a sustainable and structurally peaceful situation and this offers new opportunities. 60 years of peace also means 60 years of wealth accumulation and we are in a situation where we can, and must, reduce the role of the state. But on the other hand, we have a tradition where the state guarantees much more than it does in the Anglo-Saxon tradition.... It's about very deeply rooted traditions. And to break up these traditions in a peaceful way is the new challenge we are facing."

peromaneste spunea...

SPIEGEL ONLINE - June 3, 2005, 04:43 PM
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,358903,00.html
Spiegel's Daily Take

Forget Reality TV, the EU Constitution Has Europeans Tapping their Dialpads

Has everyone gone vote crazy? German politicians may have ratified the constitution, but now the people want their say. And if the state won't do it, it seems that the media will. And does all this hoo-ha in Europe mean a quiet victory for British foreign policy? Meanwhile the "worst climber in the world" gets dragged off Everest.



AFP
The EU constitution: more fun than Big Brother.
Thanks to the French and Dutch rejection of the EU constitution, Germany's media have caught the Gallic revolutionary spirit. The populist newspaper Bild, together with the equally colorful TV station RTL, launched its own referendum on the EU constitution on Friday. Undeterred by the fact that the German government and parliament has already given the document its blessing, the newspaper has decided to take matters into its own hands and organize a popular vote.

Half of the front page is taken up by one phone number for Ja and another for Nein, under headlines declaring "Giant Row over Europe." How getting everyone all riled up about the issue will help calm this row, isn't quite made clear, but Bild is clearly on a mission. Even more revolutionary is the fact that the phone poll that costs a reasonable 12 cents -- not a bad price for determining the fate of Europe.

"The people of Europe want to have a say on how big the EU should become and which decisions should be made in Brussels and which in our homeland," the paper continues on page two. "It appears that no one in Brussels has understood that yet."

And for those unsure of which way to go, today's topless model, Martina from Westerwald, throws in her in-depth analysis of the situation: she is willing to do her bit for Europe by using her considerable charms to persuade French men to change their minds to yes.

Meanwhile, German public broadcaster ARD has also been busy doing its own plebiscite, albeit without help from Martina. It seems that the 54 percent are in favor of amending the constitution with only 20 percent supporting agreeing on the document in its present form.

With the Eurovision Song Contest out of the way, no new "Pop Idol" or "Superstar" TV formats on the horizon and only so many "Big Brother" shower scenes viewers can reasonably be expected to watch, it seems that the latest craze to satisfy people's fetish for phoning in opinions, is the constitution. Who would have thought that the stuffy old EU could have provided such excitement?

A Bulldog in Poodle's Clothing

At the other end of the scale, this week's edition of the British newsmagazine The Economist points out that a defeat for the constitution represents a victory for UK foreign policy.

Hardly a publication to be reticent when it comes to espousing the joys of the free market, the commentator manages to do a remarkably effective job at disguising smug satisfaction: the club has been widened, thereby watering down that nasty old Franco-German collaboration, but not politically deepened, which would not have gone down well with the don't-regulate-my-market Anglo-Saxon mentality.

Ever since Margaret Thatcher introduced her childish, yet remarkably effective, EU Empty Chair Policy -- "do it our way, or we'll veto everything by not even turning up to meetings" -- slowing political integration has traditionally been a clear goal for UK prime ministers. And even better, the train's been stopped without so much as a British foot on the brakes. For once, it's not the UK which is to be vilified as anti-European, but the poor old French, which has historically shown a lot more amour for Europe than their neighbors across the Channel.

Of course it is a cruel twist of fate that one argument in France for rejecting the constitution was to avoid the nasty world of freewheeling Anglo-Saxon economics. But by saying no, that is exactly what they seem to have ended up with.

"When Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, claimed to be saddened by the French vote, you could almost hear his officials popping champagne corks," writes the Economist, later backing up the argument with a line from a 1980 episode of the British cult TV comedy "Yes Minister". "Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: To create a disunited Europe," says the civil servant Sir Humphrey. "The more members it has, the more argument it can stir up, and the more futile and impotent it becomes." This, of course, being, in John Bull's eyes, a very good thing.

"The Referendum: a Plebiscite on Globalization"

Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas, on the other hand, has a much more positive approach to European integration. He not only designed a colorful bar-code European flag, to symbolize European unity and multiculturalism, but has also written extensively in support of the EU. In Friday's edition of the Sueddeutsche Zeitung he gave an interview, in which he talked about why the constitution has been knocked back in France and the Netherlands.

Koolhaas: It was a mistake to make the constitution the subject of the referendum. Two massively important decisions had already been made beforehand -- the introduction of the euro and the widening of the EU -- and then the referendum came afterwards. People were asked their opinions about decisions which they had not been able to participate in.

Sueddeutsche Zeitung: The referendum turned into a sort of plebiscite on globalization. But strictly speaking having a strong EU would be one of the best ways of protecting against globalization or influencing it.

Koolhaas: The whole topic of globalization played a very important role in France. People there were afraid of bowing down before an Anglo-Saxon style market. The French were defending legitimate interests. Globalization represented a real danger for them. So the French No was relatively sensible. The Dutch No, on the other hand, was purely emotional. The irony is that Holland doesn't have so much of a problem with the Anglo-Saxon mentality.

Sueddeutsche Zeitung: How can it be avoided that a mix of national identities be seen as a loss of national identity?

Koolhaas: Since the 80s tolerance and multiculturalism has been part of how the Netherlands sees itself. But in the last 10 years it has become clear that both of these principals have been used as a sort of shield against real integration. We have so much respect for every culture that no one is asked to change. We tell immigrants, that we respect them so much that we are even going to teach you in your own language. What we don't tell them is that they will then never learn our language and have a say in the decision-making process.

Sueddeutsche Zeitung: What role do the new and the future EU member states have to play?

Koolhaas: I was recently in Turkey. It's an incredibly energetic country which is working on a whole range of different visions of how South-Eastern Europe could develop. They are not begging to become a part of the EU, but rather are using the candidacy as an opportunity to think about who they want to be. It is precisely the new member states, and the states who want to join, who understand the creativity which Europe offers. The way people think on the edges of Europe seems to me much more European than the mentality of people in the established center of the EU, where everyone is feeble and wary of all the new faces.

Anonim spunea...

June 3, 2005
EU Crisis Escalates After Referendums
By REUTERS

Filed at 10:39 a.m. ET

LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - Europe foundered in its bid to contain the damage over a new EU constitution on Friday as the fate of the euro single currency became increasingly swept up in the crisis engulfing the bloc.

Despite calls for calm after France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution in referendums this week, the language of European Union leaders turned increasingly edgy.

Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, whose country holds the EU presidency, spoke of a ``big European crisis'' if EU leaders failed to agree on a long-term budget this month.

And Italian Welfare Minister Roberto Maroni, a member of the Euroskeptical Northern League party, sparked a flurry on financial markets by suggesting that Italy hold a referendum on abandoning the euro and returning to the lira.

European Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia defended the euro in the latest of a string of comments from leaders that have highlighted how far the currency has been caught up in the crisis over the constitution.

``The euro forms part of our landscape. I think nobody is going to succeed in eliminating an achievement that cost us a lot to bring about and that is bringing us many advantages,'' he said in an interview with Cadena Ser radio in Spain.

The constitution was meant to make the EU work more smoothly after its enlargement to 25 states from 15 last year and had nothing to do with the euro set up by 12 members in 1999.

But the rejection of the treaty by two EU founding members has raised questions about how committed European countries are to working together to make the single currency a success, and opened the door for Euroskeptics to question its existence.

Italy's Maroni told the Repubblica daily the euro ``has proved inadequate in the face of the economic slowdown, the loss of competitiveness and the job crisis.''

The euro, which slipped to eight-month lows against the dollar this week, fell further on Maroni's comments but then recovered to trade at $1.2288, little changed on the day.

``The market remains on tenterhooks for any negative news about the euro,'' said Mitul Kotecha, head of global foreign exchange research at Calyon.

RATIFICATION PLANS FALTER

Germany's chief government spokesman, Bela Anda, echoed others in the European leadership when he said that Germany was not worried about the state of monetary union and that ``the euro has proven itself.''

But many Europeans blame the euro for an economic slowdown and high unemployment, and -- if the referendums in France and the Netherlands are representative -- no longer trust their governments to decide what is good for them. Both the French and Dutch governments had campaigned for a ``Yes'' vote.

The treaty on the EU constitution has been on life support all week, as Europe's leaders urged countries to go ahead with ratification despite the French and Dutch ``no'' votes. All member states must ratify it for it to come into effect.

But even that commitment to ratification was unravelling on Friday with Ireland, Portugal and Britain hinting they might call off plans to hold their own referendums.

In Denmark, two new polls showed the number of Danes planning to vote ``No'' in a September referendum had overtaken the ``Yes'' camp. Luxembourg's Juncker said he would resign if his country rejected the treaty in a vote due in July.

The crisis of confidence triggered by the referendums coincides with efforts to agree a long-term EU budget, always a sensitive issue as member states jealously count how much money they are forced to contribute relative to the others.

Juncker will chair a June 16-17 Brussels summit which is meant to agree on what to do about the constitution and try to clinch an agreement on the 2007-2013 budget. He said failure to agree on a budget would make matters much worse.

``A failure on the financial perspective (budget) would turn the big European difficulties into a big European crisis.''

Anonim spunea...

June 2, 2005
2 'No' Votes in Europe: The Anger Spreads
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN

BERLIN, June 1 - Some are calling it a divorce; others, a disenchantment. Whatever you call it, the French "non" on Sunday and the Dutch "nee" on Wednesday have clearly left the European Union's proposed constitution a dead letter for now, frustrating the efforts of Europe's leaders to move to the next stage of integration.

The impasse could stall efforts to develop common foreign policies and push the euro, a potent symbol of unification, into a downward spiral.

But there is something at stake here far broader than the constitution itself, which the Dutch rejected emphatically on Wednesday, 61.6 percent to 38.4 percent, according to unofficial results.

There is a disaffection, perhaps even a rebellion, against the political elites in France, Germany and Italy.

The governing parties of the left and the right are saying the same things to their people: that painful, free-market economic reforms are the only path toward rejuvenation, more jobs, better futures. And the people, who have come to equate the idea of an expanded Europe with a challenge to cradle-to-grave social protections, are giving the same answer: We don't believe you.

A French lawyer and commentator, Nicolas Baverez, who once wrote a book titled "The Fall of France," called the French vote "an insurrection, a democratic intifada," that reflected the "despair and fears of the French in front of the decline of their country and the inability of their leaders to cope with the crisis."

The repercussions of this uprising will be felt widely.

"I think there's a revolt against the establishment that leaves governments from Great Britain to France to Germany to Italy singularly weak," said Charles Kupchan, an associate professor of international relations at Georgetown University and a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, "and that spells trouble for Europe and it spells trouble for an America that will be looking to Europe for help on many different fronts."

The public disaffection is different in each country, and more than economic matters are involved. Europeans are worried, among other things, that the rapid enlargement of the European Union, especially the prospect of Turkey's membership, will leave them more vulnerable to uncontrolled immigration, especially by Muslims. There is a sense, palpable in the Netherlands, that the whole European enterprise is controlled by unresponsive, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels who have it in their power to rob countries of their national identities.

But in France, Germany and Italy, already beset by high unemployment, the worry that free-market reforms will only make matters worse predominates. A week before the French rejected the constitution, Germany's chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, called early elections, after local defeats had left him essentially without the authority to govern. Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has promised reforms but failed to deliver them, out of concern for mass discontent.

The paradox here is that if the political elites and most economists are right in saying that free-market reforms and more competition are essential for these nations to match their economic competition, then the "democratic intifada" could rob the faltering core of Europe of the very means it needs to rejuvenate itself.

"Old Europe lacks confidence and is therefore defensive, trying to freeze things rather than look forward, feeling that any change is bad," Mark Leonard, a specialist on European Union affairs at the Center for European Reform, said in a telephone interview. "It's a toxic brew of failure to build support for reform, terrible economic circumstances and elites that are tarnished and shop-soiled."

It would make things a bit too simple to depict public distrust of politicians in Europe these days as purely resistance to economic reform. Indeed, in Germany most people seem to accept the idea of reform, at least theoretically. The nub is that Germans are more strongly attached to a countervailing idea - that even as a country enacts reforms, it has a responsibility to protect people against their effects.

"We do need more liberalism," said Janis M. Emmanouilidis of the Center for Applied Policy Research in Munich. He was speaking of economic liberalism in the European sense, meaning greater reliance on free markets, reduced benefits and less government protection for the work force.

"The problem is that you don't have that kind of tradition in France or Germany," he continued. "The intellectual elites in Germany argue in favor of economic liberalism in a couple of newspapers, like Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutsche Zeitung. But the rest of the elite looks at this from the standpoint of solidarity, of how you uphold solidarity in the face of reform."

This explains what might seem a paradox in the German situation: namely that in repudiating Mr. Schröder because they do not like his reform program, the Germans are turning to the conservatives' candidate for chancellor, Angela Merkel, who is likely to enact even tougher reforms than Mr. Schröder did. Of course, it does not help that unemployment keeps rising, to 12 percent now, just as Mr. Schröder's reforms have started to take a real bite out of the public welfare.

In the view of many analysts, Mrs. Merkel will have a grace period in which to enact her program, during which Germany will have a real chance to lift itself out of its stagnation. The risk is that if the conservatives' reforms do not show results fairly quickly, the political pendulum will swing against her just as it has swung against Mr. Schröder.

In France, too, those who favor liberal reforms say there is one figure who may have the convictions and the political skill to carry them out: Nicolas Sarkozy, who is expected to be reappointed interior minister and is a likely candidate for president in the next elections, in 2007.

But Mr. Chirac himself seems to have reacted to the crushing defeat he suffered on Sunday by reaffirming his attachment to what he called the "French model," which seemed a coded way of putting tough reforms on the back burner, as he has done at similar moments in the past.

"There is a gap between what reality demands and what the French people want," said the political philosopher Pierre Hassner. "The elites weren't courageous enough to explain things."

In this sense a great part of the problem, many here say, is that French leaders themselves seem to be uncertain about the need for reform, or at least are inconsistent. "Chirac is a victim of his own contradictions," said Guy Sorman, a French commentator and a rare proponent of free-market liberalism in France. "He said, 'I am for Europe but against liberalism,' but this is completely absurd because people understand that Europe is a liberal construction."

Anonim spunea...

Sub presiunea evenimentelor
Vreti sa salvati Europa? Ingropati Constitutia!

Se intampla un lucru bizar in Europa: Franta spune tare si raspicat "NU" Constitutiei europene. Imediat, oficialii europeni si - culmea arogantei - Jacques Chirac insusi atrag atentia ca "procesul de ratificare trebuie sa continue", ca Franta nu vorbeste pentru toti. Aflam ca e nevoie de nu mai putin de sase tari pentru ca Tratatul sa fie declarat, oficial, mort, dar nu aflam si cum mai poate fi tinut in viata dupa referendumul francez. Pentru ca singura solutie ar fi ca francezii sa voteze pana iese "ce trebuie". Trei zile mai tarziu, olandezii striga in delicatele urechi europene un "NU" si mai covarsitor decat cel francez. La Bruxelles, Barroso ii da inainte cu continuarea ratificarii. "Criza? Care criza? Nu cunosc criza eu!", aceasta este atitudinea lipsita de orice urma de sens a oficialilor europeni. Presa este insa plina de metafore funebre: "Moarta si ingropata" - editorial, "The Guardian", "in coma profunda supravietuind artificial" - AFP, "exercitiul suprarealist de a calari cai morti" - Timothy Garton Ash, s.a.m.d.
Constitutia europeana a murit! Nu poate fi conceputa nici o situatie in care Tony Blair sa indrazneasca sa le propuna britanicilor un referendum asupra Constitutiei, dupa ceea ce s-a intamplat in Franta si Olanda, cu exceptia cazului in care vrea sa se sinucida politic. E drept, Londra nu va anunta public pentru a nu-i da satisfactie lui Chirac, dar rezultatul este acelasi. Pe de alta parte, restul statelor unde sunt programate referendumuri se vor gandi de doua ori daca merita sa cheltuiasca banii intr-un exercitiu de pura futilitate. Tot ceea ce se poate face acum este sa se constate rapid decesul la summitul de pe 16-17 iunie, sa se organizeze o scurta si demna ceremonie funerara si sa se treaca mai departe. A prelungi inutil sperantele eurofililor este un tratament inuman si dureros. Daca s-a putut cu Teri Schiavo, se poate si cu Tratatul constitutional.
Eliberata de balastul unui document ramas litera moarta, Uniunea Europeana se poate concentra asupra a ceea ce trebuie facut. Liderii europeni au acum sansa sa aseze pe masa, intr-o atmosfera solemna si calma, data fiind gravitatea momentului, toate problemele si optiunile ce le stau la indemana.
Cea mai importanta problema: "Cum le poate fi livrata cetatenilor Europa?" Primul pas este sa se conceada ca nu exista "cetateni europeni", ci cetateni ai Frantei, Olandei, Marii Britanii, Poloniei etc. Operatiunea presupune, pe langa o dureroasa renuntare la clisee ideologice, o repliere "in jurul faptelor". Cetatenii diferitelor tari membre au preocupari, temeri si nemultumiri diferite: francezii si nemtii sunt satui de capitalism, britanicii sunt obsedati de suveranitate si centralismul birocratic de la Bruxelles, olandezii, de banii lor si de imigratie. "A vinde Europa" inseamna a-i convinge pe toti acesti oameni ca Europa nu adanceste, ci rezolva probleme intr-un mod in care Constitutia nu a reusit.
Aceasta repliere conceptuala pare modesta, dar ea poate conduce la o revolutie. Daca liderii politici vor conveni ca trateaza cu oameni vii, vor fi intr-un pericol mai mic sa le ofere "cai morti". Cum se poate face concret acest lucru? Sa negocieze pana cad de epuizare pe alte baze decat cele de pana acum si sa testeze solutiile intr-un mod mai putin grandios, dar mai eficient.
Sarcina este uriasa si extrem de urgenta. Exercitiul de redefinire a UE poate dura si cativa ani, dar merita facut cu orice risc.

Un articol de Cristian Campeanu

peromaneste spunea...

VESTUL ESTE SUB ASALT, NICI SUA SI MAI ALES NICI VESTUL EUROPEI NU-S FAVAORITELE IN ACEST NOU VAL DE GLOBALIZARE. IN AFARA DE INDIA SI CHINA INSA, POATE FI SI SANSA CELOR CA ROMANIA SI POLONIA!


June 3, 2005
A Race to the Top
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Bangalore, India

It was extremely revealing traveling from Europe to India as French voters (and now Dutch ones) were rejecting the E.U. constitution - in one giant snub to President Jacques Chirac, European integration, immigration, Turkish membership in the E.U. and all the forces of globalization eating away at Europe's welfare states. It is interesting because French voters are trying to preserve a 35-hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day. Good luck.

Voters in "old Europe" - France, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy - seem to be saying to their leaders: stop the world, we want to get off; while voters in India have been telling their leaders: stop the world and build us a stepstool, we want to get on. I feel sorry for Western European blue collar workers. A world of benefits they have known for 50 years is coming apart, and their governments don't seem to have a strategy for coping.

One reason French voters turned down the E.U. constitution was rampant fears of "Polish plumbers." Rumors that low-cost immigrant plumbers from Poland were taking over the French plumbing trade became a rallying symbol for anti-E.U. constitution forces. A few weeks ago Franz Müntefering, chairman of Germany's Social Democratic Party, compared private equity firms - which buy up failing businesses, downsize them and then sell them - to a "swarm of locusts."

The fact that a top German politician has resorted to attacking capitalism to win votes tells you just how explosive the next decade in Western Europe could be, as some of these aging, inflexible economies - which have grown used to six-week vacations and unemployment insurance that is almost as good as having a job - become more intimately integrated with Eastern Europe, India and China in a flattening world.

To appreciate just how explosive, come to Bangalore, India, the outsourcing capital of the world. The dirty little secret is that India is taking work from Europe or America not simply because of low wages. It is also because Indians are ready to work harder and can do anything from answering your phone to designing your next airplane or car. They are not racing us to the bottom. They are racing us to the top.

Indeed, there is a huge famine breaking out all over India today, an incredible hunger. But it is not for food. It is a hunger for opportunity that has been pent up like volcanic lava under four decades of socialism, and it's now just bursting out with India's young generation.

"India is the oldest civilization, the largest democracy and the youngest population - almost 70 percent is below age 35 and almost 50 percent is 25 and under," said Shekhar Gupta, editor of The Indian Express. Next to India, Western Europe looks like an assisted-living facility with Turkish nurses.

Sure, a huge portion of India still lives in wretched slums or villages, but more and more of the young cohort are grasping for something better. A grass-roots movement is now spreading, demanding that English be taught in state schools - where 85 percent of children go - beginning in first grade, not fourth grade. "What's new is where this movement is coming from," said the Indian commentator Krishna Prasad. "It's coming from the farmers and the Dalits, the lowest groups in society." Even the poor have been to the cities enough to know that English is now the key to a tech-sector job, and they want their kids to have those opportunities.

The Indian state of West Bengal has the oldest elected Communist government left in the world today. Some global technology firms recently were looking at outsourcing there, but told the Communists they could not do so because of the possibility of worker strikes that might disrupt the business processes of the companies they work for. No problem. The Communist government declared information technology work an "essential service," making it illegal for those workers to strike. Have a nice day.

"This is not about wages at all - the whole wage differential thing is going to reduce very quickly," said Rajesh Rao, who heads the innovative Indian game company, Dhruva. It is about people who have been starving "finally seeing the ability to realize their dreams." Both Infosys and Wipro, India's leading technology firms, received more than one million applications last year for a little more than 10,000 job openings.

Yes, this is a bad time for France and friends to lose their appetite for hard work - just when India, China and Poland are rediscovering theirs.

peromaneste spunea...

Dialog cu un cititor peromaneste:



Cititorul :
reactia clasei politice din Ro este destul de ciudata...
toata lumea afirma ca intrarea Ro in 2007 este o problema de tratat si ca Ro nu trebuie sa se ingrijoreze...
se ascunde din nou gunoiul sub pres




PEROMANESTE: o asemenea reactie se mai numeste si 'in denial'. sunt doua probleme:

1) tratatul Romania-EU a fost intocmit de fosta clasa politica PSD cu o Franta/Germanie defavorabile SUA, favorabile contractelor pe sub masa incheiate cu Nastase, inainte ca echipa lui Basescu sa vina cu axe 'lipsind reflexe europene'

2) daca stam stram si judecam drept, o europa de 27 in care o tara ca Romania are drept de veto este mult prea mult pentru un danez, finlandez si chiar olandez...

Anonim spunea...

U.S. warns EU against turning inward
By Brian Knowlton International Herald Tribune
FRIDAY, JUNE 3, 2005


WASHINGTON Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met Thursday with three high European officials to underscore a continuity of relations after the French and Dutch votes rejecting the EU constitution. She also urged Europeans not to turn too sharply inward while pondering their future or to shy from enlarging a Europe that, she said twice, "of course includes Turkey."

Rice's comments reflected a high-level showing of administration concern that the successive setbacks to the constitution might hamper trans-Atlantic cooperation and slow the accession to the European Union of U.S. allies like Romania and Bulgaria, as well as, farther down the road, Turkey.

The European officials who met with her - the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana; the EU external affairs commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, and Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn of Luxembourg, which now holds the EU presidency - went out of their way to emphasize the continuity that Rice referred to.

Ferrero-Waldner said it was undeniable that the French and Dutch votes represented "real, important, serious setbacks." But, she added, "We are able to work with you today as well as we did yesterday."

The four officials said that plans for a conference this month in Brussels for donors to Iraq reflected their ability to continue working together on sensitive topics. Cooperation also remained, they said, on Iran and Middle East peace.

The European officials said that several key meetings in Europe this month would provide a crucial opportunity to show the people of the Continent that efforts to forge a stronger Europe were not dead.

The Bush administration has for months responded to questions about the EU constitution with general expressions of support for a stronger and more united Europe. The specifics of how to achieve that, they have said, are up to the Europeans.

U.S. officials have sought to play down the impact of the French and Dutch votes.

But they also warn of a prolonged period of European introspection that might slow cooperation on an array of issues while delaying enlargement.

Rice said that the United States clearly favored "a Europe that is outward-looking, not inward-looking," and it was in that context that she referred to the inclusion of Turkey. Many people who voted against the constitution said that the possible entry of Turkey into the EU was one of their reasons for opposing it.

The Europeans assured Rice on Thursday that they would not turn inward. "Some people have suggested we will now be too absorbed in our own crisis to pursue our external policies," said Ferrero-Waldner. "I promise you this will not be the case."

But they also spoke of needing time to better understand voters' reservations about the constitution.

cititor de bine spunea...

bey anonim, pune si traducerea de la ziua


SUA insista pentru continuarea extinderii

Americanii cer integrarea, conform calendarului fixat, a Romaniei si Bulgariei

Administratia americana se teme ca situatia de criza aparuta in Uniunea Europeana dupa respingerea Constitutiei de catre Franta si Olanda ar putea deregla calendarul stabilit pentru aderarea la UE a unor aliati ai SUA precum Romania si Bulgaria, comenteaza International Herald Tribune. Secretarul american de Stat, Condoleezza Rice, a cerut europenilor sa nu intre intr-o perioada prelungita de introspectie in legatura cu viitorul UE si sa nu devina reticenti in ceea ce priveste extinderea Europei, care - a subliniat Rice, in doua randuri - "include, desigur, Turcia".

Secretarul american de Stat s-a intalnit joi, la Washington, cu trei responsabili ai Uniunii Europene - Inaltul reprezentant pentru Politica Externa, Javier Solana, comisarul european pentru Afaceri Externe, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, si seful diplomatiei luxemburgheze, Jean Asselborn, a carui tara detine, pana la finele acestei luni, presedintia semestriala rotativa a UE. Cei trei oficiali europeni au subliniat, la randul lor, ca procesul de extindere va continua.

Comisarul Ferrero-Waldner a recunoscut ca votul din Franta si Olanda reprezinta "un revers real, important si serios" al constructiei europene, dar a adaugat ca UE poate conclucra in prezent cu Statele Unite la fel de bine ca si in trecut.

Rice a declarat ca Statele Unite sunt, in mod clar, in favoarea unei "Europe care priveste in afara, nu in interior" si, in acest context, s-a referit la Turcia. Or, tocmai perspectiva admiterii acestei tari in Uniunea Europeana a fost unul dintre motivele pentru care electoratul francez si olandez au votat impotriva Tratatului constitutional.

peromaneste spunea...

Ca SUA insista pentru integrarea in UE a Turciei e de inteles, chiar daca Turcia a interzis deschiderea unei ofensive americane/aliate de pe teritoriul sau in razboiul din Irak.

Ce e mai greu de inteles este cu ce-i au americanii pe europeni la mana de nu le spun europenii sa 'fly a kite'?

Cum sunt atatia cititori destepti si dedicati problemelor cu ceva anvergura, sper ca aceasta intrebare sa nu ramana fara raspuns.

peromaneste spunea...

Pentru o tratare pe larg a ultimelor doua postinguri, mergi la:

http://peromaneste.blogspot.com/2005/06/care-vor-mai-fi-parghiile-sua-din.html

moshul de la cotidianul spunea...

The International Herald Tribune

Globalist: On the road to unity, Europe loses identity
Roger Cohen
SATURDAY, JUNE 4, 2005

NEW YORK The European bicycle finally teetered into a ditch.

For decades, the metaphor of the bicycle held as a way to describe a sometimes wobbly European community beset by obstacles - de Gaulle's "Non" to Britain, Thatcher's "I want my money back," Jacques Chirac's advice to countries like Poland to "shut up" over Iraq - but able to stay upright by pedaling furiously toward ever closer union.

No longer. The message of the French and Dutch rejection of a proposed European Union constitution is that this Europe is not the one desired. There's no point pedaling, the people of France and the Netherlands declared in unambiguous terms, because that is not where we want to go.

"The feeling in these two founder members of the EU was clearly that somewhere along the line the project got hijacked," said Jonathan Eyal, a foreign policy analyst at Britain's Royal United Services Institute. The French and Dutch may have different views of this hijacking but have no doubt the EU was stolen from them.

Stolen by its new members, formerly communist Central European states with an unreasonable love of the United States and an undue suspicion of a more federal Europe with real political clout.

Stolen by seemingly unaccountable leaders ready to open the EU door to Turkey and the kind of uncontrolled immigration from Muslim countries that, many in Holland believed, led to the murder last year by an Islamic fundamentalist of the Dutch film director Theo van Gogh.

Stolen by the bureaucratic drafters of an often impenetrable constitution for an EU without an agreed geography or ambition or economic model. "At the root of the rejection lies this feeling: no security, no prosperity, no identity," said Simon Serfaty of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Stolen, finally, by a European Central Bank adept at controlling inflation and making the euro credible, but unable to coordinate policies to stir European economies from their protracted torpor and so break a sense among many EU citizens that they are worse off.

A project that does not create prosperity is a project doomed.

So what now? The 448-article constitution is dead and will not be revived. Britain, almost certainly, will not even bother to hold its planned referendum on the document. The notion that France and the Netherlands might vote again - and again, until they get it right? - is farcical. Certain ideas, like the creation of an EU foreign minister, for example, might be salvaged, but Europeans are not ready for a European constitution.

They are not ready, in part, because patriotism, and outright nationalism, are more persistent than was imagined in Brussels.

Jürgen Habermas's "constitutional patriotism" - the identity of shared democratic values as a substitute for the treacherous emotions of national anthem and flag - was a genial construct for a traumatized post-war Germany, but Europe as a whole has mixed feelings about such bloodless allegiance.

"National sentiments in Europe have been underestimated," said Ezra Suleiman, a political scientist at Princeton University.

It was one thing, perhaps, when Europe seemed to offer the possibility of becoming a cohesive, even a federal, economic and political force. But "deepening" was sacrificed to "broadening": so the cold war's end dictated. This far-flung Europe of differing priorities and postwar histories seems to make few hearts beat faster for now.

As a result, further enlargement to include Romania and Bulgaria by 2007 will be more controversial than it seemed, and enlargement to include Turkey looks doomed.

One of the most delicate issues facing Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain during his country's EU presidency in the second half of the year will be what to do about the scheduled opening of talks with Turkey that are supposed to lead to membership a decade or more from now. Opposition to Turkish membership is overwhelming at present.

Of course, the arguments for Turkish membership at a time of tension between the Christian and Islamic worlds remain persuasive. But as Alain Finkielkraut, the French writer and philosopher, remarked, "Diplomacy is not democracy." This point has been driven home by the French and Dutch votes; European politicians now have little choice but to listen.

They need to listen in part because one of the disturbing trends evident in the vote was that young people had scant enthusiasm for the Europe being offered.

The EU was born as much through an understanding of the shared cataclysm of the past as through a vision of the future.

For the young, that past has faded. The future looks fuzzy. A central question now posed to European leaders is this: what EU do we seek and to what end?

The euro, after all, was conceived not merely as a currency but as a means to, and expression of, a political end. That end was a degree of political integration - some sort of United States of Europe - that in turn would guarantee the long-term success of a shared currency. As it is, the euro has been marooned without its political concomitant. It was also this contradiction that the French and Dutch underscored.

But for now the prospects of greater EU cohesion look bleak. The Franco-German heart of the Union lies shattered. President Jacques Chirac of France has been humiliated. Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, is unlikely to survive the election he wants in the fall. Only Blair looks stronger than a few weeks ago, but Britain cannot restore the Europe the French and Dutch feel they lost.

As these mainstream politicians grope for direction, the extremes gather force. For a long time, any association by the French center-left or center-right with Jean-Marie Le Pen, the rightist leader, was taboo. But the victorious no campaign placed a former socialist prime minister, Laurent Fabius, and Le Pen in the same camp, along with leftist extremists. Scarcely an eyebrow was raised.

The bike is in the ditch. A storm is rising. It is not clear when visibility will improve.

Anonim spunea...

When Rimbaud meets Rambo
Ben MacIntyre
The new French Prime Minister's grandiose poetic style won't cut much ice with the White House action men





“A SINGLE VERSE by Rimbaud,” writes Dominique de Villepin, the new French Prime Minister, “shines like a powder trail on a day’s horizon. It sets it ablaze all at once, explodes all limits, draws the eyes to other heavens.” Here is a rather different observation, uttered by George Bush Sr in 1998, that might stand as a motto for his dynasty: “I can’t do poetry.”

In that gulf of sensibility lies the cultural faultline of our times. For George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld words are blunt instruments, used to convey meaning, not feeling. Actions speak louder. The President of France, by contrast, rocked by the rejection of the EU constitution, has attempted to shore up his Government by appointing a poet as his Prime Minister, a patrician intellectual in the French romantic mould, a true believer in the transcendental and redemptive power of words.

These are the polar extremes of poetry, Rimbaud in one corner and Rambo in the other: the French patron saint of sensitive, tortured adolescents alongside the monosyllabic American action man.

M de Villepin’s poetry — four volumes so far — is a triumph of French style over substance, a torrent of adjectival acrobatics: grand, uplifting and painfully obscure. He speaks in a grandiloquent style that delights French audiences, but baffles most English-speakers. His high-flown rhetoric before the United Nations in the build-up to the Iraq war (“We are the guardians of an ideal”) marked him as the political and cultural antithesis to the US, and his appointment is intended to send the message that French exceptionalism is alive and well.

M de Villepin has set himself 100 days to restore French self-confidence, to infuse France with a sense of its poetic destiny: “We need a heart that beats for everyone.” For this poet, practical considerations are secondary. As he wrote in his recent 823-page treatise on French poetry: “What does it matter where this path leads, nowhere or elsewhere, if the furrow continues flowering, if the flash of lightning still inflames the night . . . If the poet still consumes himself, he refuses the enclosures of thought, certainties, to camp in the heart of the mystery, in the living spirit of the flame.”

To which the American response will be a resounding: “Whatever.” The Bush White House does not do poetry. At a Nato summit in Prague, Donald Rumsfeld was once forced to sit though a performance of modern dance and poetry. Asked for his reaction afterwards, he shrugged: “I’m from Chicago.”

Les Anglo-Saxons — as Villepin likes to categorise America and Britain — have seldom mixed poetry and politics. There have been numerous British writer-statesmen, but no poet-politician of note. Clement Attlee scribbled self-mocking limericks, but can you imagine Tony Blair penning anything more poetic than pop lyrics? John Prescott might have been invented for the purposes of doggerel: “There was a young man from ’ull/ Who usually spoke total bull . . .” Abraham Lincoln and John Quincy Adams were both published poets, but in modern times the only president-poet was Jimmy Carter. His 44-poem collection Always, as brave as it is bad, was received with thinly disguised and richly deserved mockery: “The geese passed overhead/and then without a word/We went down to a peaceful sleep/Marvelling at what we’d seen and heard.” John F. Kennedy commissioned Robert Frost to deliver a poem at his inauguration, and Bill Clinton had Maya Angelou do the same. But poetry does not stir the soul of President Bush, unless you count the Bible and George Jones singing A Good Year for the Roses.

To the Anglo-Saxon mind there is something dodgy, even dangerous, in the man who rules the world by day and writes verses by night. As W.H. Auden wrote: “All poets adore explosions, thunderstorms, tornados, conflagrations, ruins, scenes of spectacular carnage. The poetic imagination is not at all a desirable quality in a statesman.” Indeed, the precedents are not happy ones, for there is a peculiar link between frustrated poetic ambition and tyranny: Hitler, Goebbels, Stalin, Castro, Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh all wrote poetry. Radovan Karadzic, fugitive former leader of the Bosnian Serbs, once won the Russian Writers’ Union Mikhail Sholokhov Prize for his poems. On the whole, you do not want a poet at the helm.

Yet in France, proof of a refined literary consciousness is a prerequisite of high office, and the virtue that eclipses sin. When François Mitterrand died, French commentators touched only briefly on such aspects of his career as wartime collaboration, cynical political opportunism and obsessive adultery, while devoting acres of print to his love of books and remarkable literary output. Every French politician is expected to produce a trophy bouquin. Before writing the ailing

EU constitution, former President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing penned sensitive novels.

M de Villepin has placed himself firmly in the tradition of French diplomat-poets. In the preface to his 2003 book he effused: “This eulogy owes nothing to artifice or chance. It has ripened inside me since childhood. From the bottom of my pockets, stuck to the back of my smock, hidden in the corner of abacuses, poetry gushed out.” That statement immediately earned him a nomination as Poseur of the Year by a New York newspaper.

His appointment is certain to increase the accusations of pretentiousness from the American side, and philistinism from the French. The chasm has never been wider, or more in need of a bridge. America’s public image could benefit from a sense of imaginative wonder, a little more Rimbaud and a lot less Rambo. Anglo-Saxon mockery is the essential antidote to Left Bank belle lettrism, which too often uses poetic complexity to state the obvious, or nothing at all.

George Bush and Dominique de Villepin might learn much from each other, but no amount of translation could allow them to speak the same language. In the aftermath of 9/11, M de Villepin walked through Manhattan: “In the flayed city, facing the raging winds, I called upon the words of Rimbaud, Artaud or Duprey. At such a grave hour, how could one not think of these thieves of fire who lit up, for centuries, the furnaces of the heart and the imagination, of thirst and insomnia, to build an empire only within oneself.” Mr Bush also surveyed the city, but did not think of poetry or imagination: he invaded Afghanistan.

Anonim spunea...

De la: toni din Bucuresti
In sfarsit o veste buna

In ultimii 15 ani , 99% din evolutia politica romaneasca a fost dezamagitoare . Ma bucur ca Romania va fi amanata pentru integrarea in UE , sper ca se va renunta complet la aceasta aberatie . Mai ales ca principalul motiv pentru aderare este saracia . Nu se poate lua o decizie asa de importanta , care duce si la renuntarea unei parti din suveranitatea tarii , si in viitor probabil partea aceasta va fi tot mai mare , numai ca sa scape oamenii de saracie si de foame . O integrare sincera se face cand ai un nivel de trai decent si poti sa hotaresti pe alte criterii decat foamea din stomac .


De la: neverul again din Israel
Re: In sfarsit o veste buna..m-ai facut curios

La 2005-06-08 12:14:51, toni a scris:> O
> integrare sincera se face cand ai un nivel de trai decent si poti sa
> hotaresti pe alte criterii decat foamea din stomac .

si care e planul tau ca sa se intimple aceste "minuni" fara a intra Ro in EU? prin slogane vadimiste goale de continut? sint gata sa citesc planul tau economic detaliat in care Ro nu primeste mai multe miliarde de Euro de la EU si oamenii din Ro o sa aiba " nivel de trai decent "?





De la: S (...@yahoo.fr)
"Nu ne vindem tara !"

Parca am mai auzit chestia asta pe undeva...IMGB, nu ?
Te astept cu "Dumnezeu ne-ajuta/Si fara valuta" cand s-o trece la Euro.
Asa-s unii...le e frica de tot ce-i nou. Si de cei ce nu le seamana. Poate ca ar trebui sa se relanseze moda mustatei in Occident ca sa se convinga tot romanu' ca nu-i lupu'.



De la: toni din Bucuresti
Re: In sfarsit o veste buna..m-ai facut curios

Se poate trai si altfel decat din pomana . Poate vreodata vei intelege .


La 2005-06-08 12:52:40, neverul again a scris:

> La 2005-06-08 12:14:51, toni a scris:> O
> > integrare sincera se face cand ai un nivel de trai decent si poti sa
> > hotaresti pe alte criterii decat foamea din stomac .
>
> si care e planul tau ca sa se intimple aceste "minuni" fara
> a intra Ro in EU? prin slogane vadimiste goale de continut? sint
> gata sa citesc planul tau economic detaliat in care Ro nu primeste mai
> multe miliarde de Euro de la EU si oamenii din Ro o sa aiba "
> nivel de trai decent "?






De la: toni din Bucuresti
Re: "Nu ne vindem tara !"

La 2005-06-08 17:00:30, S a scris:

> Parca am mai auzit chestia asta pe undeva...IMGB, nu ?
> Te astept cu "Dumnezeu ne-ajuta/Si fara valuta" cand s-o
> trece la Euro.
> Asa-s unii...le e frica de tot ce-i nou. Si de cei ce nu le seamana.
> Poate ca ar trebui sa se relanseze moda mustatei in Occident ca sa se
> convinga tot romanu' ca nu-i lupu'.

Aici e altceva decat vandutul economiei . Pentru economie a fost nevoie doar de sudoare . Si pana la urma se poate obtine un pret bun pe aceasta sudoare , in cazul in care nu se fac excrocherii .
E vorba de renuntatarea la suveranitate . Suvernatitatea Romaniei a fost castigata in razboi , cu sange de roman , acesta nu are pret . Noi acum o dam pe niste masini mai bune si ceva concedii petrecute in trainatate . Ce au castigat stramosii cu sange , noi dam pe zambete frumoase .






De la: geek-a-contra din lume
Re:suferanitatea....

am scris intentionat cu "f"

si in ce consta suveranitatea la care ar urma sa renunte Ro? saracele celelalte tari care fac parte din ue.... cum or fi traind ele fara suveranitate?

ma intreb ce o sa faca Ro cu suveranitatea ei peste fro 10-15ani daca nu intra in ue... oare cu ce se poate minca suferanitatea aia? cu piine sau cu mamaliga? sper sa fie cu mamaliga ca daca nu intram in ue de mamaliga am pus-o.....




De la: ingineru din vancouver
Re: "Nu ne vindem tara !"...

... desi e foarte "politically incorect" conform modei zilei si dogmei europene.
Da, se poate sa te dezvolti si fara sa-ti pierzi suveranitatea, asa cum au facut-o altii. Exemple ? Am mai dat: Coreea de S, HK, Singapore, Israel... Toti astia au pornit de la o situatie similara ori mai proasta decat Ro la sfarsitul WWII. Unde sunt acum ? Ce "uniune" i-a "tras" inainte ? Cum de au reusit sa se dezvolte fara sa-si piarda suveranitatea (mai putin HK, ma rog...) ?

Romanii au un talent deosebit sa aleaga cel mai prost "deal" pe care istoria il ofera la un moment dat, fara prea mari eforturi de discernamant (probabil c-asa-i "mai usor"). Atata vaiet si zbucium dupa UE care practic nu-i decat versiunea vestica a defunctei URSS... Chiar nu vedeti ca nimeni din vest nu mai este dispus sa ofere "pomene" pt. "egalizare" ? UE va avea pana la urma aceeasi soarta ca si URSS (si din acelasi motiv: lipsa de vitalitate economica, ceea ce se traduce prin lipsa de bani...), insa nu fara ani pierduti si fara sacrificii inutile... De ce vor romanii sa fie parte din asa ceva ?

peromaneste spunea...

Prietenilor si cititorilor nostri interesati in mersul monedei euro pentru economiile nationale (in speta, cea italiana), iata un articol care ilustreaza o data in plus teza peromaneste cum ca euro nu-i panaceul economiilor europene:


June 9, 2005
Europe's Latest Economic Scapegoat: The Euro
By FLOYD NORRIS

PARIS, June 8 - Is the euro in danger of dying before it reaches its seventh birthday?

A suggestion by Italian cabinet ministers that the country hold a referendum on withdrawing from the common currency drew denunciations from much of Europe, as finance ministers met in Luxembourg this week. But the fact that they were discussing the issue at all highlighted the notion that Europe's common currency is taking part of the blame for the Continent's economic woes.

Few, if any, think the euro will stop being the legal currency of much of Europe. But after French and Dutch voters stunned the political establishment by rejecting the proposed European constitution, those opposed to other European institutions have been emboldened.

"It is just inconceivable that a country could envisage dropping out of the euro," said Jean-Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg premier and current president of the European Union. Hans Eichel, the German finance minister, said the very idea of a country withdrawing was "nonsense," and Pedro Solbes, the Spanish economy minister, called the common currency "irreversible."

The row was started when two Italian cabinet ministers from the Northern League, which is tenuously allied with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, suggested a referendum on returning to the lira. Mr. Berlusconi did not endorse the idea, but neither did he denounce it. For the last year, he has said the blame for many of Italy's economic woes lies with the European Central Bank, for keeping interest rates too high and for allowing the euro to gain against the dollar.

Nostalgia for national currencies has risen in the last year as European unemployment has remained stubbornly high and growth has trailed that of the United States and Asia. A poll taken late last month by the Forsa organization for Stern magazine found 56 percent of Germans preferred to return to the mark. The magazine said the margin of error was three percentage points.

On one level, the euro has been a great success. Travel among the 12 countries that use it is far easier, and companies in those countries can contract with others knowing there is no currency risk involved. The euro was officially created at the beginning of 1999, but actual euro coins and bills did not become legal currency until the beginning of 2002.

But economic integration of the euro zone has not come as rapidly as some had hoped and that has created stresses. "You cannot succeed over any length of time with one monetary policy and 12 fiscal policies," said Robert Barbera, the chief economist of ITG Inc.

Europe tried to finesse that fact with an agreement that no government using the euro would allow its budget deficit to exceed more than 3 percent of gross domestic product, but in fact a number of countries have exceeded that limit. Rather than levy fines, as was envisioned, the response thus far has been to weaken the rule while encouraging countries to do better.

To the extent that Europe does pursue excessively easy fiscal policies, the response would probably be a weakening of the currency, as has happened in recent weeks. That has aroused concern in Europe even though some, including Mr. Berlusconi, have been loudly calling for a weaker euro for many months.

When the euro was being designed, some economists forecast that European countries would be forced to liberalize their economies because devaluation within the euro zone would be impossible. In that context, liberalization refers to making an economy more flexible, with workers easier to hire and fire. Most European governments have tried to follow that prescription in one way or another, but anger from voters and unions has forced retreats, and in some countries liberalization has become very unpopular.

Before the euro was cast in stone, Italy periodically allowed its currency to depreciate against the German mark. Such devaluations were often turbulent, and were accompanied by pledges that it would not happen again. But they served to allow the Italian economy to regain competitiveness with other European economies where inflation was lower and productivity growth greater. Since the euro was introduced, those trends have continued, but devaluation is out of the question. Italy is now in recession.

Blaming Europe for national problems has happened in countries besides Italy and pressure has been growing on the European Central Bank to lower its short-term interest rate, now at 2 percent. Jean-Claude Trichet, the president of the central bank, has backed away from statements ruling out a rate cut, though he has not endorsed one.

Lower interest rates might help stimulate European economies, and a lower euro could help exporters, but neither would address issues of Italy's competitive position with other parts of Europe. Its position has also been hurt because some of its traditional industries, like textiles, have been damaged by Chinese competition.

It is not clear how Italy, or any other country in the euro, could withdraw if it wished to do so. The Maastricht Treaty that established the currency has no withdrawal provision.

If a country were to insist on withdrawing, presumably it could. But there would be the risk of higher interest rates and a greater reluctance of foreigners to invest. There would also be issues of whether debts contracted in euros could be converted to national currencies that might then depreciate against the euro.

For now, it is unlikely that talk of countries getting out of the euro will advance very far. But the talk highlights that the financial unification of Europe is a work in progress, one that has not advanced as rapidly as its advocates expected.

"We are proceeding too slowly," Mr. Trichet said this week in Beijing, where he was attending a conference of central bankers, "but we are proceeding with unifying the market."



D-le Isarescu, bagati de seama si nu va aglomerati agenda cu euro(penizarea) leului caci mai pierdeti o parghie si nu castigati neaparat ceva pe masura prin adoptia euro-ului!

peromaneste spunea...

Britanicii vor fi pentru 6 luni responsabili cu afacerile la varf ale Uniunii. Iata starea de spirit de acum 6 luni in Marea Britanie:


January 5, 2005
In British Popular Press, Folly's Home Is Brussels
By GRAHAM BOWLEY

ONDON, Jan. 3 - The Daily Mail, one of the many British tabloids that love to hate the European Union, published a thunderous report shortly before Christmas that Britons faced a shortage of Brazil nuts, a favorite seasonal food. The cause, naturally, was that the European Commission in Brussels was banning them.

In his central London office, James Marsh, 27, a press officer for the commission, sat anxiously, perspiring slightly.

"We are not banning Brazil nuts," Mr. Marsh said. "We have import restrictions, but only on Brazil nuts in shells because some batches have been found with dangerously high toxin levels. We will have to look at the article, possibly write to the paper, and I hope get a letter published."

Today it is Brazil nuts. On other days the union is accused in Britain's tabloid press of banning artificial snow, rocking horses and even children's playtime.

Recent articles have reported that it could ban homemade cakes from church functions; that it was insisting that Europeans sing a new Euro-hymn in which they pledge allegiance to a Stalinist-sounding "motherland;" and that it was ordering the British government to change the names of Waterloo Station and Trafalgar Square because those insulted the French.

Those stories have emerged from a British press that is deeply suspicious of most aspects of the grand European project and takes every opportunity - and even, critics say, manufactures opportunities - to blacken the organization's name.

The union, Mr. Marsh said, is "acting on scientific evidence, but these stories try to make us look ridiculous."

Along with his boss, Christopher Bell, the commission's chief press officer in London, Mr. Marsh has the job of fighting what they call Euromyths.

"There are the usual stories about bent bananas and square strawberries, or fishermen having to wear hairnets," said Mr. Bell, 46, who worked for The Daily Mail in the 1990's.

"But my favorite was the one about motorway bridges having to have busts of Jacques Delors on them," he said. Mr. Delors, a former president of the European Commission and, worse, a Frenchman, was a special target of the British press.

"You know that is not true, but there is always a grain of truth to these stories," he continued. "In this one, there had been a call in the European Parliament for all publicly funded buildings to be made more aesthetically pleasing. They took it from there."

Press officers meet daily to discuss which stories they should rebut. "We don't like doing it, but it is a case of having to do it," said Michael Mann, a lanky, Brussels-based Briton who used to work for The Financial Times.

Mr. Mann said there was a regular debate in the commission's morning meeting about whether fighting a misleading story aggressively was the best way to kill it, or whether responding simply drew more attention to it. He also said that rebuttal worked only if the report contained a factual error.

Mr. Mann compiled "Get Your Facts Straight," a list for the commission's Web site, europa.eu.int/comm/press_room. It lists egregious articles and, in Brussels prose, tries to explain why they are wrong.

Most of the tabloid articles tend to portray the commission as menacing, out of touch, or quite literally crazy.

The common theme is that of a rabble of unelected bureaucrats out to destroy European freedoms and identity in its enthusiasm for a European superstate.

Germany and the Scandinavian countries produce an occasional Euromythical story. But the nation that poses "the biggest problem," according to Mr. Mann, is "Britain, by a long way."

The commission's London office runs a Web site, www.cec.org.uk/press, with its own Euromyths section and publishes a newsletter to report the latest injuries to truth.

Recent newsletters cited reports stating that the European Union was changing the definition of an island; that farmers were no longer allowed to drive tractors; that the union was banning yogurt; that tightrope walkers had to wear hard hats; and that warning signs would soon be required for mountains, telling climbers that they were high up.

"My own favorite," Mr. Marsh confessed, "is the Sun story from last February saying that women had to hand in their used sex toys."

That followed a directive from the union to promote recycling and stop electrical equipment being dumped in landfill sites. It was intended for goods like computers or cellphones, but in the mind of one reporter it included vibrators.

Such journalistic enterprise would be funny, admitted Mr. Bell with a strained smile, were there not so much at stake.

"There will be a time when people will have to take serious decisions," Mr. Bell said. "If all people see is this drip, drip, day after day, well, sometimes there is another side to it."

Anonim spunea...

De la: Shadow din Franta

Re: Statele Unite ale Europei


> Ce s-a intamplat in Franta?! Egotismul pe malurile Senei este sport
> national,de unde si refuzul francezilor a unei Constitutii
> "nefranceze"...

Ma ierti adriane dar "mai franceza" decat constitutia facuta de un francez nu se poate obtine. Aici gresesti. Nici vorba de "egotism" ci mai degraba prostie in "amestecarea" problemelor.

> Si o pedepsire a Presedintelui pentru planurile "indraznete"
> a unei Turcii in UE.Daca n-ar fi fost Schröder, Chirac mai
> realist,n-ar fi acceptat un astfel de plan!Oricum fracezii au invatat
> de la germani arta lamentarii!

Sory pedepsirea lui chirac si a guvernului pt gestionare "slaba" economica s-a realizat la votarea constitutiei chit ca asta nu avea nici in "clin" si nici in "maneca" cu Constitutia. Despre "turcia" utilizata in campania electorala franceza de catre "dreapta extrema" a lui le pen, iti dau o lada de bere daca gasesti o singura referire in constitutie. Deci "populism ieftin" pt a nu vota ceva ce "nu au inteles". In timp ce stanga dorea "fondurile de dezvoltare" alocate tarilor "proaspat integrate" si respectiv "in curs de integrare" pompate (nu in economie nu te astepta la asta) ci in social deci "bani pierduti", si in cazul acesta "populism ieftin".

> In Olanda , momentul ales a fost de doua ori nefast:-in tara lalelelor
> este in desfasurare un proces amplu de revizuire a unor politici laxe
> fata de emigranti, dupa ce radicali musulmani au ucis un cunoscut
> regizor olandez (van Gogh), fiind vorba in discutii-inflacarate-
> chiar de "societati paralele", sau
> "incompatibilitatea unor minoritati de a se
> integra".....

In olanda un criminal a omorat un olandez "pur sange" de felul lui "mai fascist" asa. Discutiile ar trebui sa se poarte "vizavi" de "politically corect"-ul care "ascunde" extremism si nu rezolva problemele.

> Si , dupa un referendum catastrofal din Franta.....

Nu e catastofral, o sa o ia in "barba" si o sa se "mai trezeasca" la realitate. Tot raul spre bine.

> Dar proiectul UE merge mai departe. Nimeni nu doreste cu adevarat
> "mai multe viteze" pentru adancirea integrarii in cadrul
> UE,altfel, insasi proiectul ar deveni "zapada de ieri"....

Ba exact crestin democratii si popularii doresc "sinceritate" respectiv "admiterea" de mai multe viteze si nu "acceptarea" minciunii pe motiv de "politically corect". Exemplu Grecia, Portugalia, si state din estul Europei care chiar si integrate au mai "mintit pe ici pe colo". Si la "teme nefacute" nici Romania nu sta mai bine. Slabiciunea "actuala" a Romaniei este datorata si celor peste 15 ani "pierduti" si nimeni nu raspunde inca, si greselilor actuale pt care din nou in buna traditie romaneasca nimeni nu va raspunde.

> In Romania, reformele trebuiesc continuate in ritm rapid si
> ...incheiate, pentru ca intr-un context nou,ochii (lui Argus!)Europei
> sunt mai vigilenti ca niciodata.Dar si cele doua tari(tandemul
> Romania-Bulgaria)sunt cele mai "sarace" tari primite
> vreodata in Uniune!Cu atat mai mult, reformele trebuie exemplar
> incheiate!

Vezi ca Grecia si Protugalia erau nitel "mai sarace" in momentul integrarii doar ca erau "doar doua" in timp ce noi suntem vazuti de "inca doi" dupa "ultimii 10". Tot a noastra e vina ca nu ne-am integrat "inca".

> UE -cel putin in mare parte-dispune de o moneda unica, de granite
> inexistente(regiunea Schengen),insa ca sa poata face fata concurentei
> altor regiuni ale lumii(nordul Americii,Asia)politic cat si economic,
> atunci nu ramane de infaptuit decat Statele Unite ale Europei.Nu
> "daca",ci "cand" va fi intrebarea corecta!
> Europa are nevoie de noi viziuni ca sa se redescopere!

Federalizarea europeana se va realiza in "mileniul viitor"(asta daca se va realiza vreodata). Momentan in cam toate tarile vestice curentele "suveraniste" isi gasesc si mai multi adepti. Asta se datoareaza si birocratiei enorme europene si lipsei de "coeziune" in cauze economice si/sau politice(vezi viteza de tratare a "importurilor" chineze de zona Euro si zona americana, 3luni deja fata de 3 saptamani, etc) si scaderii economice realizate si "impunerii" de directive sociale oriunde, oricum si oricand etc.

Anonim spunea...

De la: lucid din Bucuresti
les Francais et les meteques

Francezii sunt de departe cel mai xenofob si rasist popor european, desigur totul sub o stralucitoare poleiala de comportare politicoasa comme il faut. Ei sunt cei ce au reinventat termenul de metec si-l folosesc, in discutiile particulare mai ales, cu voluptate. Imperiul colonial i-a blestemat insa cu o droaie de "francofoni" colorati pe acae trebuie sa-i suporte dar pe care ei ii pun pe acelasi plan cu hamesitii de imigranti din est, dispretunidu-i la fel de profund. Sigur ca vanitatea aceasta se bazeaza pe o cultura seculara de invidiat si pe o civilizatie asisderea, dar daca te uiti la puterea REALA, economica mai ales, nu poti sa nu te gandesti la proverbul cu capra raioasa si coada ei inaltzata prea sus. Metecii romani sunt la fel de dispretuiti de francezii "veritabili' - tip gaulois - ca si senegalezii sau berberii. Poti reusi ca roman sa fii relativ acceptat fie daca esti mare valoare si contribui astfel pour la gloire de la France, dar tot metec exotic esti considerat - vezi Brancusi - fie daca le vorbesti perfect limba si le reproduci ireprosabil comportamentul, inclusiv gandirea plina de prejudecati franco-centriste. Daca le vorbesti foarte bine limba vei suferi, caci vei pricepe mai usor aluziile lor xenofobe si rautacioasele impunsaturi. E deci normal sa-i respinga pe romani, dar o fac practic cu toate popoarele, de la "boches" la "texan cowboys". Astia sunt azi: o natiune care traieste mai ales din amintiri si prestigiu trecut dar care are fina diplomatie de a-si ascunde decrepitudinea printr-un comportament pe scena mondiala deseori de exceptie.


De la: calator
cred ca nu mai are niciun rost..

sa se repete ca francezii, daca nu au votat Constitutia, nu au facut-o doar si nici macar în principal si asi zice ca nici în secundar ca sa elimine candidatura României.
Un zvon care pleaca e greu de oprit, sa-l lasam sa-si faca viata, cât i-o fi de lunga.
Mai ales ca, în afara de cei ce-o spun din motive persoanale sau oficiale, ne cam place, noua românilor, sa ne punem vechea placa: nimeni nu ne iubeste, tot strainul ne vrea raul.
Dar m-asi opri asupra rasismului si sovinismului francez, subiect ce a dat ocazia unui act de acuzare din partea unei persoane aparent echilibrate, care propune obiectivitate si sânge rece în comentarii...a Lucidului.
Hanaah Arendt, un filozof (femeie) evreica, cu studii în Germania si ultima parte a carierei în Statele Unite, o autoare demna de citit a scapat si ea într-o lucrare ca "cel mai antisemiti popor din Europa este România". Dar, cu toate ca m-a mirat din partea ei de aces exces pasional, continui sa o citesc cu interes gândind ca fiecare persoana, fie ea culta, are momentele ei în care pasiunea depaseste gândirea.
Oricum, candidaturi la cel mai sovin, cel mai rasist popor nu lipsesc în lumea noastra.
Dupa impresiile mele englezul este cel mai sovin: cool, politicos, fara pasiune, nu se supara pe un strain...pentru ca nu se poate supara...calitatea lui de englez, superior oricarei fiinte din lumea asta parând de natura divina, nimeni nu i-o poate lua.
Si totusi exista ..englez si englez..a generaliza este stupid.

Dar sa revenim la subiect.
Când Lucidul vorbeste de sovinismul francez ma gândesc la bisericile ocupate în Franta de straini cerând regularizarea sederii lor, acceptati de preoti si încurajati masiv, la fata locului sau prin manifestatii de fel de fel de organizatii si persoane private.
Ma gândesc la manifestatiile nationale sau locale de protest împotriva expluzarilor.
Ma gândesc la decizia lui Giscard din anii 70 pentru reîntregirea familiilor lucratorilor straini.
Ma gândesc la emisiunile non stop de la France Info si la emisiunile de televiziune în care prezentatorul se scuza ca mai da si câte o stire interna, importanta fiind..revolutia româna din 1989.
Si ma gândesc, la acea ocazie, la colectele facute si la organizarea expedierii lor.
Ce vor spune acesti oameni daca vor citi rândurile unui Lucid ?

E drept, unor francezi nu le plac strainii.
Si acest lucru îl descopera si parizienii care-si fac o casa în vreun sat ca sa-si petreaca acolo restul vietii.
Ei vor ramâne întotdeauna "des étrangers".
Cine a stat multi ani în Franta poate îsi va aduce aminte ca au fost zile în care au gândit ca Lucidul.
Deoarece ne place în ziarele si literatura franceza când se înteapa francezii unii pe altii cu spirit.
Da, dar când e vorba de noi, se schimba treaba, strainul este o Mimosa sensitiva.
Cu timpul întelegem ca nu putem fi persoane de exceptie. Brâncusi, Ionescu, Cioran si multi altii s-au sinchisit prea putin de denumirea de "météque", scoasa de la naftalina în comentariile de azi, de mult scoasa din uz în Franta..
Strainul îsi face ucenicia asta pâna uita ca este strain, ceeace nu implica uitarea originilor sale.

Daca cineva nu este de acord cu Bush, devine automat anti-american.
Dar când cineva besteleste o tara întreaga, un popor întreg, ce nume poarta asa ceva ?
Daca România ar ajunge în situatia Frantei din punctul de vedere al etniilor acceptate în decursul anilor ( de un popor rasist, nu-i asa ), si ar fi locuita de lucizi..nu asi vrea sa fiu strain în România.
Vorbesc de lucizi pe modelul celui de azi, nu cel de ieri si poate nici cel de mâine.
Ca oamenii se mai schimba.

Cât despre Constitutie, poate ca românii vor multumi mâine Frantei si Olandei ( si Angliei daca ar fi votat ) pentru respingerea ei.

peromaneste spunea...

nu pierde continuarea:


http://peromaneste.blogspot.com/2005/06/victime-neanonime-ale-integrarii.html

Google
 

Postări populare