BBC Blog Network

User Profile

benagyerek

Listed below are comments made by benagyerek between Sunday, 8th November 2009 and Friday, 20th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

EU back to the future? 2:13pm on 20 Nov 2009 pp @ 3

if you were sarkozy or merkel, why would you want to create a federal superstate? wouldn't that somewhat subordinate your own office?
EU back to the future? 2:07pm on 20 Nov 2009 i have to say i agree with rcalvo72 @ 4. i think gavin is being unfair on rompuy. i don;t know the context of merkel's comment about "consensus", but i suspect what she really meant is that the man has proven skills at consensus-building, which is exactly what is required for the counsel presidency job.
EU opts for Belgian leader 08:50am on 20 Nov 2009 merlino @ 20

that's probably to do with the relative attractions of the job. the belgian "national" government is such an emasculated joke these days, that a "move to brussels" is a big step up career-wise. the same is not true of most other countries, where a move to brussels would sideline a politician from national politics, which is where the real power is. just look at the kinds of people who get picked as eu commissioners - mainly national political has-beens.

i wonder whether van rompuy's appointment will throw belgian national politics back into turmoil. anyone with an insight on that?
EU opts for Belgian leader 08:19am on 20 Nov 2009 i'm glad they eliminated the international role for the new presidency. it would have been very confusing to have yet another person trying to have their voice heard as "mr europe". as i see it now, the coordinating role, in descending order of clout within their respective areas, will be:

money / finance: ecb head
trade / industry / finance: commission president
diplomacy / security / crises: new high rep (and commission vp)

the national government heads (esp sarkozy) will undoubtedly still assert their independent voices in all these areas.

and just so everybody is clear about how to interpret this in terms of the federalism vs democracy false dichotomy, the choice of two non-entities perfectly reflects the fact that the national governments acting in concert still run the eu and fully intend to keep it that way.

the "democratic" solution would be a federal one in which the "mr europe" was directly elected by the european public instead of being picked by national governments haggling behind closed doors.

bena gyerek
Filming a revolution 10:39am on 09 Nov 2009 mte 0509

the point of 1989 is that people took back the right to do things for themselves, instead of the state insisting on doing it for them.

given the mess that the people inherited from the state in 1989 - dilapidated infrastructure, industry largely producing stuff people didn't actually want, a mentality of doing what was prescribed instead of experimenting and working things out for themselves - it was inevitable that a nasty cold reality would sink it. it will take a whole generation to pass just to deal with the mentality gap.

the point is that east europeans are finally free to do things for themselves, but that doesn't mean there isn't a hell of a lot of things that still need to be done, and the cold reality is that the onus under democracy/capitalism is on the people (and not the state) to get on with it.

your moaning about capitalism to my mind is reminiscent of someone who grew up under communism and still expects the state to deliver, only now using its new tools of "capitalism" instead of the old tools of "socialism". it entirely misses the point of the societal change that 1989 represented.
Digging for freedom 10:17am on 09 Nov 2009 dt @ 25

yes, but you are talking about events of 60 years ago.

for two generations, (west) germany has elected its own government, and for almost as long, that government has been responsible, directly or indirectly, for military and judicial appointments, hasn't it? likewise, for two generations i assume that the success and failure of businesses in germany has been largely dictated by competition in a free market economy, and in the case of the "commanding heights of the economy", management and in many cases even ownership of those companies has changed hands multiple times. is this not true?

i refer you back to your post at 11:

"If you think this is strange, wait and see what happens in Germany in the next ten years. People still hold power because the US appointed them, but times change and the sentiment I witness is not tolerant of any form of treason."

the comments you made might have had some relevance in the 1960s. but now? who still holds power? who could be accused of treason? please give an example. and why would sentiment change in the next 10 years? why would this not have been dealt with a long time ago? if german people felt outraged, why didn't they express that at the ballot box in the last 60 years?

to be clear, i do not deny that there are industrialist families in germany that may have done very nicely out of allied occupation (and nazism before that), and whose children or grandchildren still own their substantial business empires even to this day. are these the people you are talking about? is that what you are saying?
Digging for freedom 9:13pm on 08 Nov 2009 dt, still not sure i follow you.

are you saying that the german government is not in a position to decide who is in charge of the german military?

what specific members of the judiciary owe their current position to american patronage?

as far as german capitalism goes, i know very little. but it would not surprise me if a lot of families that already closely held large german industrial companies in 1945 owe a debt of gratitude to the allies for not having stripped them of their ownership given their previous close collaboration with the nazis. however, i am not aware that the usa actually transferred ownership of german industry to to any particular family. can you give some examples?
Digging for freedom 8:39pm on 08 Nov 2009 dt @ 11

can you give some evidence (weblinks) for your conspiracy theories?

"People still hold power because the US appointed them"

which people?
Filming a revolution 8:30pm on 08 Nov 2009 one thing to bear in mind is how analogous the collapse of communism in 89 was to the collapse of fascist regimes in spain, portugal and greece in the 70s. people power was the key factor then as well imo.
Filming a revolution 1:22pm on 08 Nov 2009 i can't speak for germany, but there is no question in hungary that people celebrated in 1989 the overthrow of a hated communist dictatorship and the end of russian domination. they were very grateful to rejoin the west, part and parcel of which was membership of nato and getting a us military guarantee.

across central europe, there is a very strong sentiment that western europe underestimates the threat still posed by russia. that is the main difference between "old" and "new" europe. the east very much wants an american military presence on their soil as an embodiment of the usa's military guarantee of their independence.

i would like to know whether east european contributors to this blog agree with my opinion.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

benagyerek