The power of unemployment
It's worth more than a glance at the comment made by the a European Commission spokesman on the sale of the car manufacturer Opel. The message from Jonathan Todd and his boss, Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes, was that the EU had no intention of blocking the deal. On the surface it may seem uncontroversial but the history of this affair suggests otherwise.
Germany, keen to protect as many as possible of its 25,000 jobs linked to Opel, offered 4.5bn euros (£4bn) in state aid. The offer was made to Magna, a Canadian auto parts manufacturer, and the Russian bank Sberbank. They had pitched to General Motors to take on their European arm in the form of Opel.
When the German government stepped in, numerous officials made it clear that government funding applied only to the Magna deal.
Shortly after, there was anxiety in Brussels that the proposed deal breached the EU's rules on state aid. Most officials thought that the German offer clearly favoured one proposal. The competition commissioner wrote to Berlin expressing her concerns.
The president of the EU Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, added his voice, saying "we cannot compromise European market regulation".
But once the usual statements were made, reality took over. A senior manager at Opel warned that the company would run out of cash within three months. There would be plant closures. Some 50,000 jobs were on the line - when the EU already had a dole queue of 21 million.
Suddenly the Germans said that their financial offer was not conditional on Berlin's preferred bidder winning control. State aid was available "irrespective of the choice of investor". Up until a few days ago no one had thought Berlin was interested in any deal apart from Magna/Sberbank. But once that statement had come from Berlin the commission said it had no intention of thwarting the sale.
So the question remains - when jobs are on the line - do the rules bend? The deal with Magna may still unravel, but others in the EU will be wondering whether the unemployment lines have a power of their own?
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
To Gavin
Thanks for the new blog.
Car assembly plants are high profile and the demonstrations make good media.
The issue here in Spain is is not between General Motor and the Unions. The Unions just want the plants to carry on assembling cars.The do not really care that what the badge on the front says. They would quite happily assemble for Lada if asked to.
What they do not want is to become the victims of a Rover type situation. For this reason they wont a large scale European car manufacturer to buy General Motors European operations - all of them - and not some unknown firm in Canada.
Complain about this comment
But if the German government changed the rules of the aid to fit the European regulation, then where was the bending of the rules?
Complain about this comment
To paraphrase Gavin Hewitt in a previous blog post, this issue is not important in itself, but is a topic around which an important argument can be had; namely the legitimate role of supranational decision-making. The EU, its supranational institutions, and decision-making method (the 'community method') were originally designed to put matters such as this one beyond democratic pressures. The rationale was that free-trade (i.e. the common market) is known to produce good long-term policy outcomes (i.e. increased GDP/person) even though it does lead to short-term pain (e.g. dislocated jobs) that give rise to democratic pressures for protectionism. This rationale is similar to that for an independent central banker who is known to value a certain policy outcome (low inflation) more highly than the general public and their elected representatives. The decisions taken by the central banker or the EU Commissioners do not have any 'democratic legitimacy' but instead have an 'output legitimacy'. They produce better long-term policy outcomes (moving German workers from low-productivity jobs making Opel cars to higher productivity jobs elsewhere) than the politicians elected by the car workers might achieve.
The problem comes when the delegated authorities begin to develop ideas of their own that differ from that foreseen by the owners of the power given to them by national parliaments. This 'bureaucratic drift' is particularly evidenced by the EU Commission which has been engaged in relentless campaign to increase its role by the continual expansion of the undemocratic-by-design 'community method' (renamed the 'ordinary legislative procedure' in the Lisbon treaty) into many of the the politically contested policy fields that we are used to deciding in general elections. The EU institutions have neither a democratic legitimacy to take such decisions, not the competence to achieve any ‘output legitimacy’ in the benefits of free trade in the common market. The result is that the peoples of Europe increasingly feel that political decisions are being taken by people who are beyond their influence and a yawning democratic deficit has emerged.
The only remedy to this is to de-delegate power from Brussels in all the politically contested policy fields given to it by recent EU treaties, such that the EU institutions are once again focussed on being a deliberately undemocratic decision-making regime that insulates the common market from protectionist pressures.
Complain about this comment
There is no doubt that the power of the un-employed in Europe is beginning to find a voice.
I live near Brussels and attended a 'Job Day' at the main building of the European Commission in Brussels. By mid-day the queue of un-employed people looking for a job had stretched around the building and into the area of Schuman.
What appears clear is that the people who work for the European Commission have no idea about commerce or the un-employment situation. Perhaps what no-one in the U.K. understands is that you have to be French to work for the European Commission or at least fluent in French.
To my mind there is no doubt that there is a growing concern amongst the European population that either the European Commission simply do not understand the requirements of commerce and the un-employed situation, or that they are simply hiding their heads in the sand and hoping that the whole situation will go away.
Complain about this comment
Like meznaric #2 above I don't see the problem if, as you say, the Germans changed the terms of their offer to conform to the rules.
Complain about this comment
Ahhh but did they really change the terms of the offer or just the label on the offer once Magna was a done deal?
Of course rules are bent based on circumstances.. and who it is who wants them bending.
Complain about this comment
The EU Commission after blustering and grandstanding will of course allow this deal.
This is a deal already agreed by the Paris-Berlin axis: There will be no second thoughts and most certainly no question of altering it in any way, shape or form.
Paris has agreed, Berlin has spoken and Brussels will, as is the history lesson of the entire EU from inception, do as it is told and quickly move onto matters concerning the 25 also-rans!
Complain about this comment
Is it the power of unemployment that allows rules to be bent or rather the power of Germany? I suspect that this another example of where the large players in the European project are able to choose how they want to act and simply tweek the wording retrospectively to pay lip service to grumblings elsewhere in the Union.
Complain about this comment
#2 meznaric and #5 chris911t
The problem here is that the German government only complied to the rules 1) after the European Commission made noises and, more importantly, 2) after all other groups interested in buying Opel had moved on. In essence, the deal was negotiated under a set of circunstances that were against the rules of the Single Market, and only after it was finalized did Germany change it's stance, when it made no difference anymore.
Complain about this comment
# 4
'Perhaps what no-one in the U.K. understands is that you have to be French to work for the European Commission or at least fluent in French.'
Well, I' ve read a lot of nonsense on this and Mark's blog over the last year or so, but I can confidently award this one the Gold Star.
Complain about this comment
EuroSider@4 said:
"Perhaps what no-one in the U.K. understands is that you have to be French to work for the European Commission or at least fluent in French."
This is demonstrably untrue. The French are just a small minority of those working for the European Commission, and these days being French is a handicap more than an advantage for getting a job there, as most new posts are reserved for the "new member states".
As for being fluent in French, it is doubtlessly advantageous to be fluent in the second most common mother tongue (after German) in the EU. Just as it is advantageous to be fluent in any other widely-spoken European language. But it certainly isn't a requirement (unlike English these days). Are you sure this isn't all sour grapes?
Complain about this comment
Being German I would have prefered that my tax money was not wasted this way (though if the official figures are anything near the truth then saving Opel seems to be a lot cheaper than paying all those losing their jobs jobless money for 2 years - at least they are in work now). Still I think with VW/Audi, BMW and Mercedes we have at least 3 far more competitive car producers than Opel is/was, so that there was no deperate need to save it. Unfortunately the only one having the guts to speak that out loud was our economy minister zu Guttenberg. Being a millionair he doesn't seem to rely on being relected as much as others which actually seems to be not such a bad thing after all when it comes to making necessary yet unpopular decisions. (Though he appears to be quite honest he got the highest overall percentage of direct votes in the last election, even higher than Mrs Merkel!).
But I am digressing... if they decide to waste tax payers money then the probably worst choice is to give it to GM via his phony dealer RHJI who ruined Opel in the first place. Selling Western Technology to the Chinese is usually not such a great idea either - at least it wasn't with the MagLev Transrapid :-(
In the end they probably should have left it to GM when they were restructured, no tax money and maybe half the jobs saved had been probably the best option!
Complain about this comment
We should remember that the very governments that consider such expeditures have yet to punish or regulate in any way the financial institutions that created the problem..while they pay themselves bonuses. We, the taxpayers, absorb continuing debt, caused by the misdeeds, more likely criminal activities,of bankers, who walked away with millions. I would hope these are political efforts to forestall revolution, as that is what might be necessary to change the relationship between politicians and wealth. The loss of jobs is simply a reflection of the corruption of the political processes and how the aquiring of individual and corporate wealth has been achieved at the expense of the workers. Power is never just given up, it must always be taken....Do not expect your government to do the right thing, they had that chance and failed to act.
Complain about this comment
Understanding the true nature of the EU is a matter of watching what they do, not listening to what they say. What do they say? They have diarrhea of the mouth, an endless stream of incomprehensible jibberish punctuated by lies and hypocricy. Therefore this comes as no surprise. It's in the same vein as jettisoning the Growth and Stability Pact in Maastrict not only by fiat of the court rather than by legislative process but without even one of the billions of Euros that should have been paid in fines ever collected for its proscribed penalties being imposed when it was the law. And who were those most flagrant and consistent violators who got away with it? France and Germany who run the EU, the very same governments that insisted on the Pact and the penalties in the first place. Or simply circumventing failure of approval of the Constitution by the process agreed to by turning it into the Lisbon Treaty because the proscribed process was unsuccessful at imposing it. So ignoring its own regulations concerning fair competition comes as no surprise. Nor will any of the populations seeing this nullification of laws offer any protest because that is the cultural values they have always accepted in the past whether under the EU or their own national governments. The EU is about doing what feels good at the moment regardless of what was said and enacted into law to prohibit those very actions and agreed to previously. Like all despotisms, the EU is ultimately irrational and doomed, a body governed by secret personalities rather than by laws.
Complain about this comment
"They have diarrhea of the mouth, an endless stream of incomprehensible jibberish punctuated by lies and hypocricy."
Are you still writing about the EU or about your own health situation?
Complain about this comment
There are politicians who are politically "tight" - ie they will pursue laid-down policies as inflexible law. And there are politicians who are pragmatic: they deal with the reality. Is Neelie Kroes being pragmatic?
Complain about this comment
frenchderek (16): Is Nellie Kroes a politician or an independent competition regulator making quasi-judicial decisions about companies supposedly breaking EU competition policy? Why did Microsoft and Intel, who are both currently appealing billion euro fines imposed by Nellie Kroes, campaign in the irish referendum for the Lisbon Treaty? Will their fines now be reduced on appeal? Why did the Ryanair chairman who Nellie Kroes blocked from taking over Air Lingus campaign alongside them? Will he be able to buy RyanAir now?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5359130.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8047546.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-424026/EU-watchdog-investigate-Ryanairs-takeover-bid-Aer-Lingus.html
The EU Commission was originally established in the 1950s to insulate the common market from the protectionist tendencies that can arise from democratic politics, i.e. from the disgruntled voters in the picture at the top of this page. But a funny thing seems to have happened at the supranational forum, with the EU Commission using its competition policy to encourage corporations to support its own institutional interest in self-aggrandizement.
Complain about this comment
#10 & #11 have questioned my comment about being French to work for the European Commission.
It is a requirement of the European Commission in Brussels that you are fluent in French. If you know different then please inform the Human Resources department in Brussels.
I assume these commentators actually work for the EC.
In defence this is not an attack on France or the French people. If anything it is a complaint about the European Commissions inability to see beyond its own offices.
The point in discussion here is not the language the European Commission uses in its day to day business, but whether the European Commission employs staff in its departments who have even the slighest idea about international commerce and what is happening outside the bars and cafes which surround the EC buildings in Brussels.
I doubt this, as it appears to me that the European Commission are more interested in employing Political students who are experts in 'European Political Affairs' than people who have been out there, worked in the modern world and appreciate the requirements needed to survive in this global economic recession which is causing havoc across the world.
Working for the European Commission is great if you are political student from Paris, not so great if you are from Poland, Italy, Germany,the U.K. or Ireland. I'm sorry but I'm sure that there are many Polish, German etc. people who have a lot to offer the European Community....but don't speak native French!
And no.....it is not sour-grapes!
Complain about this comment
Gavin Hewitt.
"..but others in the EU will be wondering whether the unemployment lines have a power of their own?"
remember the Reserve Army of Labour?
Complain about this comment
Eurosider: you need to have a good knowledge of a second language in order to work in any EU institution or international organisation. French is certainly an advantage as it is also one of the languages spoken in Belgium and it is still one of the main working languages in the Commission. In a EU competition you get more points if you can speak several languages. You don't need to be French or to speak French to work there!
Complain about this comment
Good blog, Gavin. You are doing a fine job.
I am curious about unemployment, because I live in Switzerland and it tends to be very, very low. In the previous places i have lived, with sham representation posing as democracies, the unemployment rate was controlled by government who were controlled by corporations.
Now corporations (or to exact: the shareholders who make a profit from cheap labour) demand a surplus of labour. Supply and demand. If there is a perpetual oversupply of something, the price is perpetually driven down. Hence all the major political parties who take the bulk of their funding from large corporations (i.e from the shareholders) agree that an ideal rate of unemployment is around 6 or 7 percent. Any less and wages rise and profits (and corporate tax!) goes down. Any more, and the social costs are too high.
If you do not believe that employment levels are as astutely fabricated as interest rates, come to Switzerland and see a different system in action.
I once lived in a village of 127 souls, and this community voted to set local tax rates.
Unlike the political party control model that centralizes all government income into one central fund before it is distributed to the various levels of government (the CRF: the central revenue fund), the Swiss never pay all their tax to a central fund. The federal government get one third, the cantonal government get one third, and the local government get one third. Not distributed to them from the central fund, but rather paid directly to them.
And thus, local governments can raise and lower taxes by about one third of what you would pay in the UK. So can cantons. Hence you get competition between governments of different towns and regions in order to attract tax paying citizens. We all know what happens to our cup of coffee is there is no competition in the service industry that supplies it. We all understand what happens to the quality of tools if there is no competition in the market which supplies it.
So why do we expect a service industry like government to be any different? If the ruling party have no need to compete when in power, of course the quality of the service will degrade.
Now the Swiss example I saw was that in this community of 127 people, two teenagers were graduating, and would need jobs. they both wanted to go to Zurich to study. So the town had a discussion and a vote, and agreed to raise the price of electricity by 3 rappen per kilowatt hour (about 2 pence). This money was to be put aside to pay for the creation of new jobs for the school graduates. It would be used to pay for the study costs and also for new tools and machines that would allow them to then use their skills in the local community when they finished study.
It is a curious system, and it is worth researching historic unemployment rates in Switzerland. You will be amazed, I suspect. Even during the height of world war two, it never got above 6 percent.
Such is life when people control their social environment and government.
When a political party sponsored by super rich shareholders seizes total power of a central revenue fund, it ought come as no surprise that the resultant policy creates endemic and perpetual under employment. that is what folks are paying for, when they sponsor political parties! You get what you pay for.
I find the structural nature of employment fascinating, because it never reported that way in the press. It is all a big mystery.
The only mystery to me is who will buy all the things made by the machines owned by the shareholding few in years to come. I mean, what with?
You replace all the people with robotic tools and computers, and the market smiles. You are super efficient and will make HUGE profits!!! What you cannot automate, you send to china to be done by communist party slaves.
Except....... except if everyone does that, there is nobody left to buy the glorious products!!
It is a hum doosey, that's for sure. Some argue that it is precisely this problem which is crippling the US economy long term. There are not enough wages being earned in the USA today to pay the interest on bank loans and credit cards, and yet there is a surplus of material supply in just about every sector.
I tell you, poor people are a right menace. First they want work, so they can get something to eat, and then they don't buy things because they haven't got any money.
No wonder the shareholders get confused and upset and go to Davos to talk about it with sympathetic fellow travelers. I mean, if the wretched poor people are not going to work because the robots are more glorious, then i suppose the political party will just have to hand out sufficient government contracts and jobs such that sufficient money exists within the economy to sustain the capitalist power structures which formerly relied on controlled labour.
In such a world (I submit we are four fifths along that road already), the rules of a market economy break down completely. You have those who are born to be shareholders, even if they can't make a profit, and then you have the mass of unwashed common folks whose duty it is to be ruled cheaply and without undue fuss.
In the middle you have your zoo keepers, the shareholders footmen, whose job it is to round up the sheep and herd them into their respective places.
The party members.
If this seems far fetched, then explain to me why the shareholders of the banks who went broke are now telling me how to live and proclaiming that their wealth is the result of clever business and hard work done last month.
We already have such a non market economy and political society. There is no market, it is a myth.
We have the super class of corporate shareholders, we have the footman class of corporate executives and toady politicians, and then we have the great unwashed mass who beg for welfare and the few little bits of real work that still exist. This is not a market system, but rather a caste system. A class system.
How can you tell the difference? Easy enough. In a market people who lose their money become poor people.
In a caste system, you are born into wealth and if you lose it then the government get it back from the poor people who mistakenly thought it was theirs, and give it back to you.
So that you can retain your rightful place, at the top of the caste system.
It is disgusting, and an affront to intelligent and dignified people. A caste system. Lords and ladies and Princes and Queens. All shareholders of banks and all to important, at birth, to experience competition in the market.
Complain about this comment
For those who do not believe in structural unemployment, I beg you consider the various industries that traditionally support the republican and democrat parties in the USA, and the torries and "labour" in the UK.
Not surprisingly, those shareholders from industries which employ a lot of labour want conservative policies and do not appeal to labour. That is your agricultural sector, your heavy industry, shipping and those who grow fat feeding the military machine.
Now the traditional "supporters" of pro labour policies in the westminster representation system are those who don't employ much labour, if any. So the labour party has always been lead by bankers, lawyers, doctors and other professionals with very low wage bills.
It is easy to woo the working vote and promise to pay them more if you don't lose any of your profits by doing so.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat #21.
cogent, especially "the caste system". thumbs up!!
Complain about this comment
EuroSider at #18
Your claim that French is a requirement for employment in the EC is simply False, and demonstrably so (just go read the recruitment web pages of the EU).
Let me venture an analysis: You applied for the EC and got rejected. Being a typical Englander who doesn't speak any foreign language, you assume the rejection came from a lack of French skills. Am I close? ;)
Complain about this comment
Like others in this blog I ask:
What is the wrongdoing in the Opel deal so far? Is the BBC saying that the commission has ignored a violation of rules?
Also, I'd like to know: If this is a conspiracy of Berlin and Bruxelles why is it that we have seen no protests from London and Bruxelles (now as the Belgium government seat) so far?
Do I recall this wrong or has the British government not through Mr. Mandelson (?) Endorsed the agreement? And why is this not mentioned in the blog article?
Complain about this comment
#1. At 1:22pm on 21 Oct 2009, MikeE-BCN wrote:
"What they do not want is to become the victims of a Rover type situation. For this reason they wont a large scale European car manufacturer to buy General Motors European operations - all of them - and not some unknown firm in Canada.
Magna is hardly an unknown name (within the car industry), but the fears of asset-stripping are real, and remember that a large scale European car manufacturer is no certainly of security - the problems at Rover started when BMW bought the group only to hive off the most profitable sectors for themselves and had intended to close the unwanted plants had Phoenix not taken them over in that (now) infamous deal.
Complain about this comment
I agree that Mr Hewitt's Article does at least open up the debate on what is crucial to Citizens of Europe, especially in an Economic downturn. However, the 'Opel arrangement' is simply Berlin-Paris flexing their EU power-base and Brussels taking the line of least resistance.
democracythreat and #21.
Some excellent analysis backed up by sage-like predictions.
The non-profit making 'poor' and 'the 'caste system' to assist those who want/need/enjoy 'profit-taking' is very much on course within the European Union.
It is amazing how the EU has sold this Economics of the mad-house to almost all Europeans (inc. a majority of supposed intellectual-trained Media folk). To be fair it is a sick puppy that now exists from the USA across Europe through Russia and Asia to China so the EU version is just one nasty conglomerate of the whole unedifying trough of profit-driven, consumerist greed.
Almost every Nation and Citizen has embraced the EU's 'Open Borders' - 'Free Market' EU policies: That these 2 supposed enlightened-progressive measures have directly led to a massive surge of an itinerant-underclass of employees that can be shifted from State to State at low cost, housed at low cost and paid less than the National-Local workforce seems not to bother the EU leadership or most people.
Furthermore, the dreadful increase in 'Trafficked' People - - Estimates in 2007-08 put the figure as high as 12 million across the EU - - has led to a vicious exploitation of the vulnerable, especially women and children (recent 'anti-slavery' Adverts funded by the EU serve to emphasise this Human catastrophe). People trapped for very short life-times in the degradation of prostitution, pornography, enslaved in sweat-shops/factories etc. was always a problem, but nowhere near the scale now occurring across the EU's member States.
It is a similar story with racketeering for Drugs, Alcohol, Counterfeit Goods, Money and Economic/Asylum Migrants.
The pan-European scale of these smuggling activities coupled with their inevitable violence and the resulting huge Social misery and disorder plus enormous pressure on each Nation's basic fabric and cohesion have come about within the last decade or so.
Unguarded, unfettered international borders have allowed a boom for Free Enterprise culture of Criminality every bit as enterprising and productive as any other segment of the Economy.
It is the EU commitment to policies of unpoliced National borders coupled to unregulated big-Business that created the conditions for this tide of Human flotsam. From the failing Banks propped up with Tax-payers billions and yet still paying themselves enormous bonus to the drowning Chinese cockle-picker in Morecombe Bay may seem a long, long way, but, in brutal truth the criminally irresponsible actions of the top echelon of Political - Commercial Leadership puts each in its place.
Whatever the tragedy or profit that follows it is as a result of inadequate care and concern for conditions of Citizens that can only prevail at a pan-European level.
"The poor are always with us," So Henry VIII is rumoured to have said, and we haven't moved much from that pertinent observation except to make it worse: These days we 'lorry-bus-ship-plane' in the poorer classes to hobble around Europe/UK: As long as many of us have a second car or holiday and fresh bread on the table we are reluctant to look at the economic reality. Often, when we do look, we just point an accusing finger at the new folks as the 'free-loaders' when of course nothing could be further from the economic truth!
The fallacy of the supposed 'freeing up' of border controls and the 'free movement' of People have been exposed, but, no one in the EU leadership is likely to call it into question. Brussels and every big-Business is making too much profit from the excesses to give a moments thought to the casualties. It is a very simple thing to appear to be desparate to 'save' the jobs of Opel car workers - - when Unemployment is between 10 and 20% across the EU and a great fuss is made of 25,000 jobs then you know it is time to look over your shoulder for the real story - - to paraphrase what a lady said at the time of 9/11, "With all that's going on these 12 months nows a good time to cover up the bad news!"
Look around Mr Hewitt - - Opel is not the story and Unemployment is only a small, harsh part of the gruesome larger picture- - if the unemployed had power there wouldn't be 10 to 20% of the workforce laid off, would there!?
Complain about this comment
3. At 1:35pm on 21 Oct 2009, Freeborn-John wrote:
"To paraphrase Gavin Hewitt in a previous blog post, this issue is not important in itself, but is a topic around which an important argument can be had; namely the legitimate role of supranational decision-making. .../[cut the inevitable anti EU rant]/..."
Or indeed international trade agreements etc...
Complain about this comment
11. At 4:47pm on 21 Oct 2009, RCalvo wrote:
[in reply to "EuroSider" @ #4]
"Are you sure this isn't all sour grapes?"
Well known sour grapes at that, between the French and the Dutch speaking population.
Complain about this comment
#14. At 5:03pm on 21 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Understanding the true nature of the EU is a matter of watching what they do, not listening to what they say."
Much like the USA then - next!...
Complain about this comment
Eurosider@18:
I don't work for the European Commission. In fact, it has never held much appeal for me. Neither do I work in a field directly related to the EU. But I am aware of the EC's recruitment requirements, since they are public, and they certifiably don't include being fluent in French. In fact, I have actually, personally met people who worked for the EC and who not just weren't fluent in French, but hardly could speak a word in it.
Neither am I French. Ironically enough, I've even been refused in one occassion the opportunity to be considered for a job (in France, not in the EC) because of not being French (although a fluent French speaker), so I am certainly not motivated by any misplaced Francophilia.
So, please stop the ad hominems and address the facts. Incidentally, if you look at the EC's job postings, you will also find out that:
a) Previous work experience is preferred, indeed *required* for most vacancies. If you walk into an EC building, the only people you'll find without previous work experience will normally be the interns. And they (generally) aren't the ones taking the decisions.
b) There aren't many vacancies for political science graduates (certainly not in the DG Competition!). Most graduates working in the EC are lawyers, economists and engineers.
Vicente-de-Lisboa@24: EuroSider doesn't appear to be a native English-speaker either, so I guess Boilerplated@29 is closer to the mark.
Complain about this comment
RCalvo #31
That would indeed seem likely. Let us wait for Sider's own post.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Interesting comment democracythreat.
Switzerland is not that far away to visit it sooner or later :)
I enjoyed reading your comment except for:
"Any less and wages rise and profits (and corporate tax!) goes down."
Even if corporate tax would actually fall then the taxes on the wages rise at the same amount and the state even saves money from social services. So for the state a lower unemployment rate has about no disadvantages.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I can only say 3 things in response.
First, what a very tiresomely single-track, bored existence it must be.
Secondly, my #33 was referred to the Modrator, so, obliged to you for getting it out there by unintentional helpfulness.
Thirdly, and in the spirit of fair-play check the other Blog.
Complain about this comment
#14 - MarcusAureliusII
I do wish you would stop prattling on about "jettisoning the Growth and Stability Pact". To start with, it's the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) and it was not 'jettisoned', it was amended.
Your are familiar with the concept of amendment are you? Like the 27 you have had to make to your constitution.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
threnodio and #38.
Cogent and straightforward as ever, I see.
Naturally, I do not concur with your view: You would be surprised if we ever found common ground, except in that we both use these Blogs to feed our views into the general chit-chat.
PS: Me-rijn is I believe a relatively new and interesting Blog entrant. We have already locked-horns. He is bit obsessed with my comments - - try to wean him off - - he's 'pro-EU' like yourself, but in that dogmatic, "Rule EU, EU rules the land", sort of manner that just irks us 'antis' and makes us tease him all the more!
Complain about this comment
#39 - ikamaskeip
To be honest, I am struggling to remember what I said and I can't refresh my memory because someone has referred me. Suddenly, I am vigorously opposed to moderation:-) I seem to remember that, for once, I was defending auntie and look what I get for my trouble. The stupid thing is I will never find out why because I have no idea how to update my profile so I don't get the email. Makes you wonder why we bother really.
Complain about this comment
moderators.
#33, #35, #38 (read this before it "disappeared", nothing contentious in it if memory serves) -- what is going on?
Complain about this comment
jr4412 and #41.
What is going on if I may be so bold is that the Blog Moderators have taken a distinctive dislike to my critique of the BBC Editors on recent topics - - well, they all changed around - - as they have exhibited in my humble view some very shoddy journalism whilst settling in.
Me-rijn and threnodio inadvertently joined in with my little bric-bat offensive on the BBC and those sensitive, blushing lads and lasses known as Moderators just couldn't be grown up enough to take it in their all-powerful 'House Rules' (another name for fixing the debate) stride.
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip #42.
thanks. yes, "moderation" isn't quite the right word, more like "diktat".
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments @ #43
Could it have simply been deemed off topic, from what I remember the at comment #33 seemed to be a simple (if predictable) rant about the EU from "ikamaskeip" that didn't even mention either Opel, the car industry or any related issues at all, as for the other messages - well if they followed up on the off topic comments too...
So, not so much "diktat", just a simple case of straying to far off topic, and of course the real reason "ikamaskeip" is bashing on about BBC moderation is because to deflect the blog away from the very real facts that the EU (or more precise the Eurozone) has been far more on the ball in this recession than so many non EU or Eurosceptic countries have, had the EU been a federal entity (or at least all 27 states being within the Eurozone) the UK would not be still diving deeper into recession but out of recession like France and Germany, or at least be showing signs of a strong up-surge in the economy. Yes, the Opel deal might have bent the rules but there has been an awful lot of rule bending elsewhere, or is this going to be a case of one set of (bent) rules for bankers and another set of 'straight-as-a-die' rules for manual workers...
Complain about this comment
It is dazzling how a company, even though it is a large one, can put so much pressure on a government simply by stating that many jobs are on the line. That can not be right. Lately we have been seeing these kind of situations many times and my guess is that Opel will not be the last company to seek help from their national governments. How are we going to put up with this? Public funding is not inexhaustible. If the people, who will inevitably have to pay more and more taxes while also suffering from the crisis themselfs, will start to protest, then where are we? The government should not forget that it also has future problems to take into account, such as how they are going to pay all the pensions when there are less and less working youngsters to provide them of money.
In my opinion Germany has been too reckless and thoughtless by immediately providing Opel assistance. This can explain the fact that they ‘forgot’ about the EU regulatory around fair competition. It seems to me that they wanted to save those 25,000 jobs at all costs and for this reason quickly drawed out a proposal without waiting for other countries’, such as Belgium and the UK, suggestions. By doing this they gave the power to the companies who employ many people (the power of unemployment) and also contributed to the democratic deficit, which is becoming more and more an urgent, European problem. In the future governments should take this case as a lesson to think through what (implicit) impact their decisions will have on all EU Member States.
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated #45.
thanks to you too. you have the advantage of having read #33, so, ok, off-topic; ikamaskeip's stance and description regarding the EU ("venal", etc) often does my head in too, but, on the whole, I appreciate his (usually) well-informed writing.
re. diktat: that was borne out of experience with BBC moderation in general, the HYS for instance is often rendered useless by the "moderation", as are, at other times, blogs like 'Earth Watch' and, apparently, this one.
on topic, I fully agree with your statement that had the UK taken a more constructive approach to co-operation with Europe over the years (ie. more than just pursued a "free market"), we'd be in a better position now economically; presumably Rover, Jaguar, etc would be too.
Complain about this comment
in reply to comments @ #45:
"ElleBelgium", you almost sound like a true UK 'Thatcheright' of the 1980s, never mind the importance of peoples jobs or the country actually having a manufacturing base, the only thing that matters is the bottom line and how little tax people pay...
Many of the problems that the UK now faces is due to having a lop-sided economy, far to much reliance on the financial/service sectors and to little indigenous manufacturing base - even the Tories, the party whose '80s policies closed much of our manufacturing base down, are now stating that we need to correct the imbalance. Remember, one only has to look at the knock-on effect when Rover closed on the UK Midlands a few years ago how many suppliers/retailers were also affected, it's not just those who work for GN/Opel/Vauxhall who would be harmed should these plants close.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS