The Sarkozy enigma
A slap for the president. A warning note delivered to the Elysee Palace. That is how the results in France's regional elections are being interpreted. President Nicolas Sarkozy's party has fallen behind the Socialists. Some of his supporters sat on their hands. The turnout may well have been the lowest in French history. The second round will be held next weekend.
Even before the votes were cast, Mr Sarkozy had dismissed the results. "The vote... is a regional one, its ramifications are therefore regional," he said. On reflection, Mr Sarkozy said he would be "attentive" to the result.
The Socialists, of course, see it differently. The result, in their view, has changed the political landscape. It was the last poll before the presidential election in 2012 and the momentum is with them.
These are, however, mid-term elections when parties in power traditionally get a kicking. The president's poll ratings are at their lowest since 2007.
So do these results tell us anything as the West struggles to shrug off the grip of recession? Perhaps.
It is too soon to talk to a drift to the left in Europe as voters react to the fall-out from the banking crisis. In Germany the centre-right retained power. And yet the Socialist leader in France, Martine Aubry, detected a yearning for a social model that the downturn threatens. "We want to be reunited," she said, "with a society that is caring, fair, and where people can live together".
The view from France is that the voters are weary, disengaged, anxious and mistrustful of politicians. They are not so much angry but fretful about their jobs, their pensions and their way of life.
In politics, this is not a time for rhetoric. The public just won't buy into it. As a candidate, Mr Sarkozy crackled with vision and energy. He pledged to turn France into an economic powerhouse. Reforms tumbled from him.
He has been a leader in perpetual motion. A modern politician who defied easy labels. He was from the right, but invited left-wingers into his cabinet. He promised to slash public spending, but has sprayed around a hefty stimulus. He worries about a weakening French national identity and speaks out for a "moral capitalism".
He still bristles with ideas and yet he seems to sense the public are not with him. Last week, he called for a "pause" in his own reform agenda. He even suggested that Parliament could "de-legislate" if it wants to.
Political space is being defined and filled by the recession. France has had an easier time than others. Yet unemployment is at 10%. The deficit is 8.2% of GDP, lower than many other countries, but will still have to be pruned.
Perhaps this is the moment for the fixers, the hole-pluggers, the deficit managers. Even US President Barack Obama shed his rhetoric soon after getting into the White House. He fell back on the auto-prompter. Vision got him into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but downturns seem to be a time for serious, lower-key politics.
In Europe, there are big, fundamental challenges that leaders are struggling to address. Some officials are talking of a threat to the "European Way of Life". Without 2% growth, Europe faces years of relative decline. And no-one is predicting that anytime soon.
Countries are having to slash public spending to pay their debts. Will the crisis force a rethink of the welfare programmes that have been a hallmark of Europe's social contract? How will Europe compete with emerging markets that are nimble and dynamic? Will Europe have to sacrifice some of its social programmes to be competitive? How will Europe get its 24 million jobless back to work? The answers are set to define politics in the future.
In France, these were just regional elections and local issues played their part, but some analysts detect an insecurity, an awareness that a cherished "way of life" cannot be guaranteed. Martine Aubry said "we do not want a policy that is destroying what France holds dearest - the social welfare model, equality and fraternity." That is the pitch that we are likely to hear time and again in Europe - that the recession threatens something fundamental which must be protected.
Of course, the voters are still intrigued by the theatre of public life. Mr Sarkozy may have bridled this week at questions about his marriage to Carla Bruni, but he also revels in the glamour of power. You sense he can't wait to get to Washington later this month where he and Carla, and Barack and Michelle will spend some informal time together.
Yet back at home, two out of three French voters say they don't trust their president. It may just be that the public sense these are times which don't lend themselves to the dazzling, the frenetic, the blaze of activity.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~45~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The French were tired of being called the 'weak-link' in the war on terror. They brought in Sarkozy. His support for nakedness on magazine covers - seen as 'passe' in some quarters - and his virulent attacks on the Islamic veil for women made him a popular president. But like Berlusconi, there may be one or two French men willing to smack his face in Paris. Sarkozy will not rise any further unless he turns out to be a new 'hitler' which is not the case. Hence he will nosedive sooner or later. I believe.
http://wfol.tv
Complain about this comment
I think that Sarko really blew it with the EPAD affair, letting his 22 year old son Jean, who is still in education, position himself as the next head of this regional institution managing a budget of several billion €. At the same time Sarko was making speeches about how France should be a meritocracy!
This debacle showed such a lack of political judgement that many of his supporters from the right realised at this point that he had lost touch with reality. Ever since then his rhetoric has become increasingly crowd pleasing - protectionism, nasty bankers and speculators, broken anglo-saxon model, etc.
Shame really, as France really did need him to advance the reforms that he will probably no longer dare to push.
Complain about this comment
Gavin,
The mere fact that Nicolas Sarkozy initiated a drastic change within the conservative French Institutions through numerous, both administrative and legal actions, already reserves him a respectful place in the French/EU history. He’s the typical French, he’s the very ‘Napoleon’ of the XXI s. if we consider the dynamism of his home and foreign policy, or else if we allow ourselves /an exercise I personally find distasteful and horrible/ to analyze his personnel life.
I know well the French mentality, and I share mush of the left wing ideas of that nation /to start by those of Jean Jaures and to finish by those of Francois Mitterrand/. It’s France. It will never change, and thank Lord!
However, we must agree that Nicolas Sarkozy gave another push to the enforcement of both the EU /by stopping its enlargement/ and NATO /by re-integrating France into its military institutions/. At home, he did not hesitate to promote right wing monetary measures and to fight the anarchistic movements that made so much harm during the presidency of Jacques Chirac. And being Bulgarian, I must express my personnel admiration for his quick and efficient action that forced the Libyan dictator /col. Khadafy/ to liberate our nurses.
Needless to say, any right wing policy is doomed to face the resistance of the left wings parties. Sarko will step inevitably from stage, say in two years. But so did Charles de Gaulle in 1968. /To-day nobody will be able to deny the historic role Gen. de Gaulle played for the prosperous development of Europe. I would say, that his dream of a united Europe from the Atlantic up to the Ural range has been realized, at least at 50%/. Sarko has grasped the relay from the late General and I wish him to carry it with success up to the final days of his stay at the Elyse palace.
Sofia, March 15th 2010
Complain about this comment
This elections are something of a slap in the face for President Sarkozy I agree Gavin. However perhaps the French are also starting to get worried about the Euro and the implications for Greece. I saw an interesting quote from President Sarkozy last week on the notayesmanseconomics web blog about Greece.
“Speculators and the markets should know that solidarity means something and that, if there’s a problem, we are there,” said Sarkozy. “The sooner we say that and the more firmly we say that, the more rapidly we settle the problem.”
Perhaps the French are also beginning to believe that his only solution is more political hot air!After the statement implies talk is sufficient.
Complain about this comment
I see a lot of the Tony Blair in Sarkozy and i noted that he was a keen admirer of TB.
He wants to be a global statesman first and formost... leaving the domestic policies to rot unless it has huge sound bites (Islamic face veils etc)... He seems to want to line his families pockets eg. his son gets influencial roles.
I hope the French dont make the mistake the Brits did with TB... get rid of him if his heart isnt in putting the French people first.
Complain about this comment
Mr Hewitt!
Surely not you, too!?
How can you have bought-in so quickly to this entirely fictitious view of la belle France!?
Surely a little more journalistic enquiry might assist you to a scoop of epic proportions.
Quote, ".. France has had an easier time than others.. Unemployment is at 10%.. Defecit 8.2% of GDP.. Lower than many countries..".
What a load of dubiously unsubstantiated Elysee Palace statistics!
France is STILL struggling to emerge from Recession (IF indeed, it has actually not remained in it?), but as per usual let us not have reality interfere with what Paris wants to claim as its version of the almighty France.
Nothing about France's Economic-Fiscal system can be relied upon to be accurate: When will the Financial World awake to the wholly unrealistic economic policies and manoeuvres of Paris?
Perhaps too much is at stake for the World Economy to risk rocking the France boat - - afterall, if its weakness was exposed it would fall and thereby would follow the EU - - too many 'big-Government/big-Business' venal, corrupt interests at the core!?
The whole French Economy is based on a fiction in which a vast over-Taxed and over-funded National Welfare system alongside a complex web of Private Manufacturing-Service Industries etc. are supposedly living-off each other! Apparently France defies the natural Laws of Economic-Fiscal practise: Its Employees work amongst the shortest weeks in the EU and yet France's Social Benefits are amongst the highest in the EU! Meanwhile France's Productivity and Sales exceed almost all Europe and much of the rest of the World whilst its Employees are amongst the Highest Paid and France Products are Priced above the EU average! All this as its Agricultural sector is one of the least productive and yet continues to receive a massive portion of the EU CAP!
SORRY, but for about 2 decades now France's Political and Financial leadership have been perpetrating a massive lie. France continues to thrive by virtue of its black-economy, namely its entire re-routing of EU Funds to support a National system that is totally out of kilter with any other recognised Budgetary methods in any other 'western' capitalist Nation.
France is the equivalent of the Soviet Central-Command Economy whereby 2,000 roof tiles were allocated to each house no matter the size of the building - - thus some rooves had 2 or 3 layers of tiles and some had massive holes - - it is an Economy that has only stood for so long due to the EU Funds & more especially the political-economic allegiance of Berlin in an axis-of-ill-will to ensure hegemony in EUrope.
I repeat a query I made some months ago: 1)How is it that France's and Germany's Economies went into Recession at precisely the same time and are supposed to have emerged at exactly the same moment with near identical Economic figures at each end of the cycle?
2) How is it Germany then with all sectors having been properly assessed correctly revised its figures downwards, but 'la belle France' sailed serenely economically onward & upward!?
What is it about France that unlike even a kite it does not need any air at all in order for it fly high?
I challenge You Mr Hewitt to go in search of the relevant France Economic figures: Try if you can to match them up to any semblance of reality?
Of course, it may well end your career: Nobody likes a whistleblower - - especially not in the one-size-fits-all, utterly perfect EUropean Union!
Complain about this comment
Cool you ask rhetoric questions. And what if really France does all what you have mentioned? Is is any exception?
Should I really go on and apply linear economics on countries like Britain and US? Take Us for example. Ok, it still has a large economy and still great production ability but if I count every US dollar that circulates around the globe, then I am afraid I have to come to the conclusion that it is more than inflation - the US dollar under linear economics should be worth as much as or less than that of Zimbabwe!
Of course 100s of you will rush to tell me "But linear economics do not apply for US cos its the strongest and the US dollar serves as an exchange currency for global commerce etc."... yeah ... i know... US used Xerox, Epson, Canon and every other printer to print otherwise useless paper that takes value only through the military control of central or international trade routes zones.
Well then how do you go on blaming France and Germany for cooking up their economies together when what they do is 5% of what the US has done. For your information, France is actually one of the few countries in the western world that still produces and the one that has some short of energy autonomy (80% of its electricity produced by nuclear plants that can cope with much more if demand increases) and is the EU country with the most complete economy: from agriculture to space. If they do what they do to their economy it is because they have some basis that others including UK and Germany (that lacks military and spatial applications) simply have not.
Complain about this comment
I don't think that there is any "enigma" in Sarkozy, and I would even add: unfortunately. There is a very simple explanation for his defeat: his economic record is a disaster. France has now a very high rate of unemployment, and a very low growth. And Sarkozy is not only the most uneducated French president ever, he is also clearly uncompetent in economy. His made himself ridiculous by a childish prophecy last month about unemployment, which was supposed to go back in February, which is absurd and very unplausible. You cannot take seriously someone like this and his policy of gestures.
He is not responsible of course for the world recession, but he made huge fiscal mistakes that are partially responsible for the high employment we face now in France: the so-called tax shield (bouclier fiscal) and above all the detaxation of supplement working hours.
Of course this week-end defeat doesn't mean that the opposition will win the next presidential election, but Dominique Strauss-Kahn will be a serious challenger for him. He is more popular than ever and all polls say he will beat Sarkozy.
Complain about this comment
Unemployment at 10%?
That's a laugh.
I lived in France for a half dozen years - believe me, outside of Paris and one or two other cities, unemployment is very very very close to 25%.
Bureaucracy has strangled France for decades. And it still is doing so.
Until Sarkozy does away with the pen-pushers, France will never change.
Complain about this comment
What is undeniable in my opinion is that France and Germany produce and export too much to other countries in Europe. Effectively, that locks the Eurozone in its current dynamics with a comparatively small region (France, Germany and environs) producing goods and almost all the other countries having to import and consume them. I am convinced that the current "PIIGS"-crisis (plus Britain, which is not in the Eurozone) is one of the results of this. If countries like Greece or Portugal were able to produce and export more, they would not be as vulnerable as they are to crises. In the long run, Europe is going to have to find a way to re-industrialise the "consumer only" nations. If this means Germany and France giving up part of their production, then so be it. Keeping the status quo is just an invitation to more crises.
Complain about this comment
As for Mr. Sarkozy, well... that he is more of an orator than an action man that was visible since the beginning. But he is a good orator, that is for certain. But not enough to reform France. France still pays "les années Miterran". De Gaul's policies in the 1960s had brought France to its best point by early 70s (France's second belle epoque) at a time others had already feeling the pinch and even the oil-crisis was passed relatively better in France rather than in Britain. By 1980 with the populist socialists on top, France started unecessary nationalisations and was spending much more than it should on trivial things (depicted by the exhuberant cost of the pyramids which Louvres could avoid - that rightfully gave the name "pharao" to Miterran) let alone the financial scandals that the government and private partners were on. The worst was that late 1960s (May 1968) mentality that rose to power and from there spread to large parts of society which hit the way it functioned - a kind of rpm limitation in Frances motor.
The impact "les années Miterran" had was that no future government was able to change things as Chirac lost a large part of his period in a strange cohabitation with socialists who even managed to pass the 35 hours per week - a measure that once again made France famous for its working environment but one which did not have the impact in the country's productivity as people might thing - quite the opposite there signs it slightly raised it as well as having a positive impact in the leasure market which is huge in a coutnry that is the most touristic in the world!
French also are not so taxed as for example in Belgium (whose system is much more heavy in these terms) and I think (I am not sure) do not have as much welfare as in countries like Danemark. Afterall there is nothing bad than knowing that if you lose your job you will not have to sell your house, change your childrens' school and downgrade your life 2 levels. If you do not pay this to the state, you would pay it in some private company. The main problem in France - and people do not want to admit - is that a lot of people ismply prefer to do nothing in their lifes and earn money from social welfare. Perhaps that is Sarkozy's biggest fail - he had promised to make it like Britain's i.e. a diminishing aid and a push to the unemployed to find a job, and if he does not find a suitable one, then at least an intermediate to earn some money until he finds a better one. Unfortunately in France, this is not followed and this encourages useless fossils of 1968 and desperate or often just lazy/black market immigrants living off welfare.
It is middle class (and in that we do not talk about ethnic French only but also a sizeable part of the Algerian community too, no matter if their bulk considered Sarkozy as fascist) that voted Sarkozy to change all the above. Albeit the seemed to ignore where Mr. Sarkozy came from (he spent his early career aiding rich people avoiding tax via Cayman islands and such...). And they forget that Mr. Sarkozy is of the same school as the above guy:
France, Paris, 1600s....dialogue between chancelier Mazarin & Corneil:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corneil: So, the state is in deep debt, there is a huge problem.
Mazarin: Yes indeed.
Corneil: But if a man is indebted and cannot pay his house will be confiscated and he will go to jail. But the state cannot.
Mazarin: Indeed, the state is a whole different level, it cannot go to jail. Hence, it can continue to get more loans to continue functioning.
Corneil: But where that will lead? Somehow the loans have to be re-paid otherwise people will cease to lend the state.
Mazarin: Yes. We can put more taxes.
Corneil: But we have put every tax possible.
Mazarin: There is always more opportunity to tax more. We can invent new ways of taxing people.
Corneil: But you cannot tax more the poor, look at their conditions!
Mazarin: Yes indeed, you are right.
Corneil: We should tax more the rich, they are few but their taxes could gather a lot.
Mazarin: No Corneil, that is wrong. Rich people give a living to a lot of poor people, it is them that move the economy. We must not tax them heavily.
Corneil: Then what?....
..... pause... Mazarin sights....
Mazarin: Corneil!.... you are thinking like an idiot. You keep forgetting that in society there are not only the poor and the rich. There is always a sizeable quantity of people, those who are in the middle. It is the ones that do all the real work producing the economy's real value. It is the ones that often aspire of becoming rich. It is the ones that we should tax more. You can tax them and they will still work more to re-gain what they lost in tax. The more you tax them the more they'll work harder in a never ending cycle. That is our source of revenue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
400 years later, nothing has changed.
Complain about this comment
@ CBW
Re "France continues to thrive by virtue of its black-economy, namely its entire re-routing of EU Funds to support a National system that is totally out of kilter with any other recognised Budgetary methods in any other 'western' capitalist Nation."
Sorry to dissapoint you, but France is a net-contributor to the EU budget (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union). Therefore France does not benefit from the budget and can't really use EU funds to prop up national figures.
Re "I challenge You Mr Hewitt to go in search of the relevant France Economic figures: Try if you can to match them up to any semblance of reality?"
Hold on, am I getting this right? You are making the very bold (and unproven) statement that France has been falsifying economic figures for the past 20 years and (because your claims are completely unsubstantiated) you are 'challenging' someone else to find the proof for your OWN statements?
Update: in discussions if contributor A makes a claim, it is contributor A that needs to prove this claim. It is not for contributor B to give to contributor A the proof of A's claim.
Complain about this comment
Nik
Re #7
Go ahead - - apply any 'linear' assessment you like to the UK!
The UK is in deep, deep Economic-Fiscal difficulty: The UK Government policies have enabled conditions for such a critical period in G.B.
However, nobody in the UK can argue they do not know the reality; nobody can qualify their assessment of the UK 'defecit' by blatantly making-up a second set of statistics that hide the reality.
France double-accounts in every aspect of its Economic regime. France relies heavily on EU subsidisation & especially on Germany's connivance/acquiesence in this corrupt activity.
The EU only exists to serve France. Germany is the leading Economic power and has always wanted control of EUrope; via a Paris-inspired EU it gets that premier position without the vicious strife of previous attempts & Paris gets to form a duopoly power-base with Berlin plus it keeps a relative form of independence.
There is simply no comparison between the UK Economic measurements and those of France; neither can the 'political' construct of each Nation be held as equivalent - - one nation is in serious trouble and knows it & whatever Government is formed will take stringent, painful actions to deal with the crisis - - one nation is in serious economic trouble and not only does its Government deny the information to its neighbouring EU partners, but also to its own Citizens.
France is the latter Nation: Of that there is no doubt.
Complain about this comment
Having until recently lived in France for almost 20 years, the election results are nothing more than the perpetual ping pong reaction which the French have always had to any real or anticipated changes which will disturb the status quo.
Unemployment is high because of the exorbitant social charges which the state imposes upon employers, a 35 hour week which is not only totally unmanageable but has done nothing to reduce unemployment. The Loi Aubry (a socialist), is one of the most impractical employment legislation ever introduced. With staff who previously worked 39 or more hours now receiving the same salary for working only 35, RTT or recuperation days, it is no surprise that employers cannot afford to take on new staff.
There are jobs to be had in France but with an ageing population of over qualified 25 years old coming out into the workforce for the first time, having followed the government's historic attempts to keep down unemployment by encouraging further education, the proverbial French hens and now coming home to roost! High salary expectations with low real life experience do not equate to the salaries which graduates have been told to expect.
Until France wakes up to the fact that as a departmentalised and individualistic country it will never be able to reform, results like these will continue to be repeated. Everyone wants change providing it does not impact on the cosy, state cocooned existence which is so deeply inbred. Nothing short of another revolution will bring about the changes needed and that starts with the people themselves asking what they can do for their country rather than what their country can do for them.
Outlawing the unions who represent a very small percentage of the population but who hold the country to ransom, would go a long way to repealing some of the most draconian employment legislation in Europe.
Complain about this comment
Let's bring Socialists to power in France and see whether they can produce there anything else than what they've always created in any country of the world from Albania to Vietnam : MISERY.
Complain about this comment
Re #6
Look no further than to Airbus's predicament (no being allowed to streamline its operations and thus save money due to political pressures), to Galileo (GPS) fiasco, to the embarrassing EU particle accelerator (out of commission for a year, again), to euro's woes.
French traditional statism has been responsible to a large degree for all those disasters.
If French model fails, so will EUSSR.
Which, according to the French, was supposed to be a counterbalance to U$A; both politically and economically.
Complain about this comment
Mes13. Cool, yes in that sense you are not far from reality. And indeed Britain has been more honest in terms of its financial situation, but when I make reference to linear economy is the exact equivalence of work, output and the size of economy. So even Britain, no matter if much more honest than France, cannot pass the test.
Ok, I know that you can easily pinpoint to me that I now relativise everything about economy but at the end of the day what is economy if not a big big lie? Every currency has the real value of its weight in metal coins and the value of paper used in our owens or toilet... That is it. If gold had taken an exchange value, it still was the metal that suffers almost no corosion able to be reworked for 1000s of years. Money is simply what value we give. If Washington can pass its lies so Berlin and Paris can. I see no harm in it.
The problem is for you that UK finds itself funding this lie. And it is understandable. I also find unfair UK having to pay the second largest input in the EU wallet while taking less than France who is third while in terms of % to the economy UK takes considerably less.
But permit me to be suspicious of all that. Why? You have to see the deaper reasons of UK's entrance in the EU. When France and Germany made it they had not UK in their minds. UK was seen as a disruptive intruder. As long as De Gaul was on power UK was kept out. UK finally got in in early-70s some 5 years earlier than our little Greece that simply lost time with the dictatorship and Cyprus invasion (a big motive for Greece to jump in for geopolitical proteciton as soon as possible). And from there on the UK was seen as only a money-cow that compensated its disruptive geopolitical role.
Because as De Gaul kne wvery well, the real interests of UK are out in the big blue sea and not concentrated in continental Europe to which the UK maybe exports but not as much as it used to do 100 years ago. So what does the UK gains out of being in EU if its interests do not coincide or even converge to what the EU is becoming (and that was visible since at least the early 80s)?
Well my point of view is simple: When one country rushes to give its precious money in a relationship with another country or with other countries, either it expects something in exchange or it wants to interfere & have a certain control and contain some process going.
Well that is exactly what Britain does. And it does it at the expense of the British middle class.
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work @ 6
“France is the equivalent of the Soviet Central-Command Economy whereby 2,000 roof tiles were allocated to each house no matter the size of the building - - thus some rooves had 2 or 3 layers of tiles and some had massive holes…”
With all my respect, I would say that you certainly have not enough reliable information of how a central planned economy is organized. It is true that it has little to do with the market economy which is the main reason for the collapse of the Communism (at least in Europe). However, you attempt to compare the French economy with the Soviet one is at least quite strange, if not completely inadequate. What I mean is that all the member states of the COMECON (including the USSR) obeyed /according to their constitutions/ to what they called “The leading role of the Central Committee of the Communist/Socialist/Working Party”. That meant that a bunch of skilled and well paid party bureaucrats elaborated the general conception for the economic behaviour of each country /a conception which had little to do with the reality/. The party congress was held to approve the said conception and to hand it over to the Government/State Planning Committee. Here commenced the real trouble because the SPC officials were ordered to put on paper the Party decision which, alas, did not correspond to the information collected from the Ministries in charge! As a result, what the SPC elaborated as a draft for the economic development of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, DDR, Romania, Bulgaria, etc., was some kind of compromise between the figures proposed by the Ministries’ officials /that were much closer to the reality, as far as it was possible to foresee what would happen/ and those shifted from atop by the SPC people… Needless to say, the said plan was to be approved by the Cabinet (which members were also members of the Central Party Committee, i.e. they HAD to accept it “Tel-quel” with all the non-correspondences, irregularities, stupidities, etc.), and, finally, the economy was based on a quite unrealistic data of figures which inevitably lead to poor economic results. Of course, the market did not exist at all /everything was preliminary planned, I mean prices, profits, volumes, etc. The central bank and the commercial banks obeyed the government /the loans given to legal and physical persons were at fixed rates, and so were the exchange rates/. Quite naturally, the Stock exchange did not exist also, and, as a result, the individual was not at all motivated to organize whatever busyness. What is more important, the individual feared to organize openly whatever busyness because he would be prosecuted for a breach of the "socialist law"…
You see friend, I wouldn’t risk joining you in your vision that France smells of “socialism”, at least of the kind I’ve described… France is so far away from that kind of “anti-economic conception” as the Earth is from Mars…
Sofia, march 15th 2010
Complain about this comment
Mes.14: Bill I live in and around France for the last 5 years and I see most things you say. Only that it is not as tragic as you say. There is nothing wrong with the state taking care of the ones in need - at least you avoid the dramatic condition of working class it is noticed in other countries like including US where the 1/4th of the population lives in 3rd world conditions. If French pay a little more is to avoid having people dying in the corridors of hospitals like animals. The problem of France in relation to the state welfare would be minimal if it had not received for the last 30 years a large quantity of immigrants of whom an important percentage is simply satisfied living off state welfare and who were added to a locally produced (out of May 1968) generation of useless people that prefer to live parasitically. But does that mean they have it wrong all the way? I am not so sure of that.
One has to apply in every country what works. And he has to evolve it. Lets not forget, the mother of modern welfare state is Britain itself, not anyone else. In the case of France, moving to a more "anglosaxon" (as they call it French analysts) model simply will not work like magic. Not because of "spoilt workers" but because of the country's characteristics. As it would not work with China that would had remained an opium-democracy if it continued to have its markets wide open as in the past. Russia tried in the 90s to open its markets giving huge property to oligarchs hoping them to become pillars of development and it nearly ended up as a failed state - state intervention corrected things. If Germany made it with a relatively open style of capitalism that was mainly because it was pushed by the US to become along with Japan the main production machine of civil products to replace the absence of that extra US production that could feed Europe with consumption products, extra production that was turned to military and spatial applications. Well for France, a country having lil bit of everything ranging from traditional agriculture to spatial applications & its own access to space, and relatively top-end military production, modifications in the tax and welfare system can be applied but a... Chili.... open, almost freestyle economy simply would not work. Even US the preacher of free markets protects its own, why shouldn't France?
Complain about this comment
When Sarkozy took power, he said the French government was broke. Was he telling the truth? It is hard to find figures about the French economy credible. How can they produce more by working fewer hours? How can they have profitable businesses yet support a massive social welfare state with the high taxes that requires?
"He pledged to turn France into an economic powerhouse."
Sounds just like Tony Blair when he said as temporary President of the EU he was going to make Europe the best place in the world to do business.
Greece is proof that there is good reason to be suspicious of optimistic numbers that don't jive with the lessons of experience. The reality of it seems more like an aging population clustered in the large cities surrounded by large numbers of out of work hated disaffected disenfranchised immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa, most of them Moslems, a youth whose greatest ambition seems to be to enter a life of unproductive idle middle management in large corporations or government where they can hide making (not earning) salaries that will provide them with a middle class lifestyle indefinitely, and this highly conservative unambitious population feels it is a paradigm the rest of the world should admire and copy.
In the real world, France is up against enormous competition that produces more and better products at far lower cost and prices. Only repatriation of profits from overseas investment by large corporations seems to bring in any real money at all. Perhaps exports to other EU countries and former French colonies accounts for the rest. The periodic strikes by farmers who drive their tractors into the cities to jam up traffic in protests, the general strikes by workers who feel their salaries, pensions, or security of their unproductive jobs is at risk, the periodic rage and arson by minorities in the suburbs, the emigration of young workers to other countries whose ambition cannot be satisfied because of lack of suitable career opportunities at home, and a delusional view of itself and the world point to a nation in very serious trouble. It is hard to see how this can be sustained indefinitely.
Whatever benefits might have accrued to what initiatives Sarkozy managed to get passed was compromised by the international financial crisis. Seeing no real improvement, the French population may have had enough of its small step away from its welfare state and will instead choose to return to socialism. This would be very good news...for its competitors like the US, more bad news for France.
Complain about this comment
16. At 12:51pm on 15 Mar 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Re #6
Look no further than to Airbus's predicament (no being allowed to streamline its operations and thus save money due to political pressures), to Galileo (GPS) fiasco, to the embarrassing EU particle accelerator (out of commission for a year, again), to euro's woes.
French traditional statism has been responsible to a large degree for all those disasters.
If French model fails, so will EUSSR.
Which, according to the French, was supposed to be a counterbalance to U$A; both politically and economically."
EUpris: What about the Channel Tunnel. Damn nuisance!
?
What about repeated claims that the Eurofighter is "challenged" ?
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat wrote:
"Let's bring Socialists to power in France and see whether they can produce there anything else than what they've always created in any country of the world from Albania to Vietnam : MISERY."
An intriguing post.
Firstly, it was Communists in Vietnam and Albania. Secondly, the misery in both countries had arrived well before the "socialists". Thirdly, and most amusingly with regard to this thread, it was French imperialism which brought the misery to Vietnam, and US imperialism which bombed the country into the stone age.
I'm no great fan of modern socialists, but only because they are generally as corrupt a group of folks as you can find on earth. The actual ideals of socialism, such as universal health care and education, and sharing between human beings equal before the law, actually seem to me to be the hallmarks of modern civilization.
The problem seems to be getting socialists to honour their ideals rather than worshipping the party as an institution.
Curiously, this is exactly the same problem we now face with the free market side of politics. They have an ideal of the free market and low taxation, but in practice they are falling over themselves to raise taxes on the middle class in order to protect their financial sponsors suffering in the market place.
Still, it is worth noting that since the cold war a lot of folks like powermeercat have been very vocal about deriding the "socialists". The socialists "lost". The capitalists "won".
Regrettably, I fear it was not the socialists who lost at all. And if the capitalists won, only a small fraction of the very richest capitalists did so.
For all the capitalists in the middle class, life has become a parade of increased government taxation and market interference. This is not called socialism, and therefore it must be capitalism. But of course, it isn't.
The cold war ought to have been a battle against the control of society by corrupt party politicians by honest politicians, but instead it became, like all wars, a screaming match between corrupt party politicians, each accusing the other, rightly, of corruption and non democratic agendum.
So now we have the total corporate control of government and the subsequent corruption for the market to suit politicians loyal to the party, and we celebrate the fact that we no long have the communist party threatening to do the same thing as the corporations are now doing.
Hitler's ghost but be beside itself with indignation. All he ever tried to do was deliver society into the tender care of the private corporations, via his party. Now his vision has come to pass, and yet he is remembered as some kind of embodiment of evil.
His great mistake, clearly, was to kill people systematically using camps. Had he used bombs dropped from airplanes, he'd be a great man. It was evidently not hitlers politics we abhor, but rather his methods.
In all seriousness, folks should research the definition of fascism and contemplate the current world, and compare it to Hitler's vision of political control by private power.
It is astounding how complete the control of the western system of representation by corporations has become.
Can anyone here honestly step forward and say that the French people can vote for a party which will not cater to the requirements of the corporate sector?
The same is true in the UK, in the USA, in Russia and just about anywhere on earth. Political representatives everywhere are faithful to their sponsors and to their party, in that order, and their sponsors of corporations.
Only in china does the party still hold power over the corporation, and manage the system of representation for its own interests, and hold the corporation at bay.
You can imagine my relief at that happy exception to global fascism.
Complain about this comment
Re Mes16: Do not take it negatively, but I really cannot believe what I just read in your message!
You accuse France of failing in the Airbus' bid for that transport military aircraft? And for Galileo? I mean, in what planet do you live?
Airbus' bid was superior on all fronts. It had a new design of a superior aircraft, that had practically the double performance as the Boeing (and older design) and with minimised maintenance costs. In addition most of hte production would had been local in the US. But it had 1 major disadvantage: Airbus is not a US corporation.
So despite the US arming saying "We want the Airbus and no other for our troops" Boeing talked in the corridors so much (God knows what menaces they throwed to the US government) that it finally reversed the situation finally passing its inferior bid in front. We are talking about state interventionism of communist-level.
At the same time, Russia (a country accused of interventionism and protectionism) who on the top is right now on a huge project of modernising its tactical fleet and with plans of even rebuilding its military shipyards to get on with the new designs, recently bought from France a number of high-tech multi-operations ships with Medvedef facing minimal internal fuss from Russian companies about the deal.
Galileo is an excellent project, and perhaps the way out for Europe. The project is expertly developed, the technology is there for quite a long, but it has been the violent reaction of US that threatens to take measures (i.e. undermining the security itself of European countries and perhaps the whole status quo in Europe) if the project moves on now. French and Germans are not enough to fight that, they have even called in the Russians by getting some extra satellites from the downsized Russian GPS (GLONAS), but further Russian implication is not possible - then Russia was not ready to intervene more in the late 90s which was the critical date. The Galileo thus had to be already operational with 30 satelites by 2008, today there is only 1 and the last country's fault is that of France. If there is still this immensely important project alive is thanks to French support and work.
I.e. The problem in both Airbus-Boeing and Galileo-GPS issues was exactly that French state could not intervene as much as the US intervenes destorying any notion of free market and healthy antagonism. Nothing is healthy there and the only cure is simply a stronger state. Perhaps EU has to follow what I say so long here:
If USA does not want our Airbuses, we can always sell them to Russia, China and India. That is the only way out for EU. The problem can be solved even with all current real and imaginary ills of EU.
Complain about this comment
JL
Re #12
Sorry to 'disappoint you', but as you have long since negated any right in my personal opinion to have your views considered I have nothing to add in reply to your so predictable defence of la belle France.
Kindly address Your remarks to someone who gives a tinker's cuss for what you have to say on any matter!
Complain about this comment
Not so cool Brush: "SORRY, but for about 2 decades now France's Political and Financial leadership have been perpetrating a massive lie. France continues to thrive by virtue of its black-economy, namely its entire re-routing of EU Funds to support a National system that is totally out of kilter with any other recognised Budgetary methods in any other 'western' capitalist Nation."
Permission to Giggle?
Delusions, paranoia, national stereotypes by the dozen, sunday papers heavy reader (obviously), ignorance, lunacy.....Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?
Complain about this comment
Any 'net' contribution to the EU figures/statistics are provided by France's Economics Dept. and/or by the Brussels' section devoted to the illustration of the Economic-Fiscal success of the EU: Therefore, all figures concerning the performance of France are open to question and doubt.
It is noticeable defenders of France are either uwilling or unable to address my main query/concern: How is it France is able to Finance such a generous Welfare Service sector whilst its Citizens work such limited hours per week and yet provide Productivity figures that rival not only Germany, but also the USA and China!?
Let me be clear: I have no doubt the individual French man & woman is as active and concerned for the development of their Nation as any in EUrope. France's Citizens must see the EU as an unbelievable bounteous haven - - providing as it does the stability from which every French man, woman & child benefits despite it supposedly being a 'net' EU contributor - - astonishing GDP targets are annually achieved as though the constraints of normal Fiscal practise simply do not apply to a Nation even in a World Economic Recession!
All the above and yet this unbounded success carries within it the most effective-supportive Trade Union legislation providing the very best Employee rights & protection, Public sector financing from cradle to grave with Education, Health & Welfare services par excellence, and its Nationally funded development 'projects' (whether by EU consent or not) seemingly unlimited in scope.
It is therefore remarkable that the same France claims a 'Private' manufacturing-industrial-services sector of even more durability that apparently attains new levels of productivity & profitability with each succeeding year!
Surely, France's Economic policy is one that the whole EU should follow: Is not France the epitome of the EU 'success story' - - combining a dynamic, thrusting, progressive private sector with an all-encompassing & supportive collective social strata that uses every EUro in Tax to the very limit on behalf of the French Citizens - - indeed, is not every day within the France Economic-Fiscal arrangement a miracle of Budgetary resilience that defies any logical-factual-statistical analysis!?
Complain about this comment
generalissimo
Re #18
I was not comparing like with like - - please read my contribution again - - I was suggesting France's ability to 'fix' the books for Public consumption has all the hallmarks of the entirely bogus USSR claims to never-ending expansion and evermore glorious achievement!
Complain about this comment
Re.20: Marcus, I would not jump that easily on saying the French market is uncompetitive. Where do you mean?
In agriculture? Do they produce one of the highest quality agricultural products in the world or not? Or do you prefer the chinese, grown up next to the chemical factory or the American ones where the cow and the chicken ended up being a box fed with cables... I prefer the state giving some money and myself a bit more so I can eat a bit more humanly. It is food we talk it is not silly dirty iphones.
In consumer products? What should I give as example? Cars? French cars are ranging from acceptable to simply superb (they rarely produced the junk others have produced), quite what the middle market wants and they are much better than other companies that need state intervention to survive. Globally they are doing not bad with PSA and Renault that partially owns Japanese Nissan too being of the largest constructors around. Quality wise they are not of the BMW standards but bring it down to a relation of price paid, numbers sold and qulity problems ppm (parts per million), cars like Peugeot may outperform of them on several vaguely comparable models. They were off the first to invest in superior performance diesel cars and right now Renault Nissan is the only company world-wide with a huge investment on electric cars while Peugeot will commercialise something that may change the way city-cars are made (a 4 seats 4-wheeled electric car driven like a vespa) - when others think that everything about innnovation is the ridiculous and not at all environmentally friendly hybrid technology (correctly snubbed by French who atteign the same results with economic diesels without adding unecessarily the impact of big batteries). So are you serious when you say French are not competitive?
In military? Well go ask what happens in Aegean where our mid-equipment Mirage 2000 outperform the full-equiped Turkish F-16 on every occasion thanks to their better radars systems and manoeuvrability. The current Rafale class simply has no match in the US camp. If France fails to augment its global share is only thanks to other countries being obliged to buy American - but that has absolutely nothing to do with French workers and their productivity: them they did their work expertly.
Nuclear: Their nuclear know-how is simply superb in this country where 80% of electricity is from nuclear plants.
Space: France is the smallest country (and with a large difference) with its own spacial programme, its own access to space and the Ariane is arguably of the most successful designs ever. ESA's programmes are largely based on France's contribution, Germany simply follows there, Italy is quite strong too, UK contributes only selectively, where it is interested...
So Marcus, while you might have a point or too about some weak points, you are wrong when bashing around every capability the French economy has to present.
Complain about this comment
dt, you seem to have forgotten the principle that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Whether it is the power of a monolithic all powerful state in any guise under any theory of economics or social benefit to society as a whole or the unchecked power of private capitalists to exercise cutthroat methods which are unchecked by the law or by enforcement of law, the results are the same, the abusive concentration of wealth and power in a few hands. This is why a system of checks and balances where each of many sides has a vested interest in confronting others to limit what they can do and not get away with it when they transgress what is allowed to them works best. This was what regulation of capital markets, especially banks was supposed to achieve in the US after the lesson of the great depression. It is the lesson Alan Greenspan never learned. It is what he didn't understand when he tesitified before Congress a little over a year ago when he said "there is something about markets I don't understand." What that was is that the humans who participate in them are inherently corrupt and will do whatever they can get away with to their own personal benefit no matter who it hurts including their own employers. Corruption is part of the human condition. It must be controlled by coercion of law where possible, by fine and imprisonment when necessary.
Complain about this comment
Nik;
Among the many reasons Airbus did not get the contract was the bribe it paid the Saudis for a huge contract, an illegal bribe that denied Boeing a fair bid at about 40 billion in contracts. Airbus just pled guilty and paid 400 million to the US in fines. IMO Airbus should be further punished by not being allowed to bid US military contracts for another five years. Airbus' performance on late deliveries makes it an unattractive supplier. The strong Euro makes it uncompetitive. Russia has its own aircraft industry to support, why would it want to buy Airbus' products? The contract going to Boeing will give American workers jobs that would have gone overseas. A winner for America, a loser for Europe. Bravo, President Obama's administration did something right. Why would China want an air tanker to refuel long range bombers. It doesn't have any long range bombers to refuel?
Building a redundant GPS system to replace one that already works just to soothe bruised European egos is stupid. Go ahead, do it. If Europe can make it work and the US continues to see it as a national security threat, it will make good target practice for new American space weapons.
Complain about this comment
@CBW
Re "Sorry to 'disappoint you', but as you have long since negated any right in my personal opinion to have your views considered I have nothing to add in reply to your so predictable defence of la belle France.
Kindly address Your remarks to someone who gives a tinker's cuss for what you have to say on any matter!"
Poor CBW, again suffering from his black-white view on reality.
I was not defending la belle France my friend. I was pointing to the fallacies in your own argument. It's not because you attack France and I nuance your contribution that I 'defend' France (too complicated for you huh?)
I also take note of your refusal to enter into debate with me. That's real good debate and also very democratic of you!
Complain about this comment
Cracklite
Re #25
Always good to read the views of the so cool, calm, collected, rationale 'pro-EU': Especially when as is typical in your case you offer no defence of la belle France and/or the political travesty going under the guise of EUropean Union, and resort from the off to name-calling and abuse!
Nowhere in my comment do I 'stereotype' the French or any 'nationality' (did You actually read my contibution or have you made up your own!?), nor can you point to any 'paranoia' (a mental disorder involving fear of persecution - - again, nowhere do I suggest such an issue exists with France, UK etc.!); my point about France - Germany is as founders of the EU they control almost every aspect of it as is patently obvious to anyone with an open-mind on Brussels' political leadership. At no point do I refer to any 'sunday' or even daily papers (living in Finland it's the Helsingin Sanomat) and it is striking how the 'pro-EU' always brand anyone expressing 'anti-EU' views as being affected entirely by what they 'read' whereas those clever 'pro-EU' are immune to it all!
No, I am afraid the only one suffering 'delusion' is yourself for appearing to believe by chucking out unpleasant labels against those who do not comply with your views the 'pro-EU' can win an argument! My only label for that is: How very sad you are so impoverished for points you are reduced to such a low level of debate.
Complain about this comment
Nik, you must be joking. Would I rather eat American or French produced food? American any day. No mad cow disease, no hoof and mouth disease, it is much safer. It is also much cheaper and there is a far wider variety to choose from. Would I buy or drive a French car? Never. Most French cars cannot even be exported to the US because they don't meet the minimum standards required. That's true of most other domestically sold European cars too. The French Space Agency? I thought it was a European Space Agency. How many astronauts have they put in orbit? How many space shuttles have they built or flown? How many successful manned missions to the moon? How many rovers have they put on Mars? Seen any TV sets for sale in the US made in France? I wonder why. While 80% of France's power is generated by nuclear reactors and only 20% of America's is, America uses so much more power than France that its 20% is more than France's 80%. That being said, the US has not built a nuclear power plant in over 30 years by political choice since TMI. I know, I worked in that industry for a time. French designs would not be accptable to the NRC. I don't think it will be fast or easy for America to relearn how to do it to NRC's satisfaction, they are tough.
The F-16 is an old plane, probably over 20 years old by now. Can your Mirage outmaneuver an F-22? I don't think so. BBC has quite a vidoe of it at an air show two years ago. That plane can practically dance.
Complain about this comment
@Nik #7
It is good practice to acknowledge the source of a quote, in particular if it is elaborate. The Colbert - Mazarin dialogue you quote (not 'Corneil'; other mistakes as well) seems to come from a theater piece of Antoine Raoult "Le diable rouge".
@Chris Camp #10
I think this is spot on: this is one of the things I learned also from looking into the Greek debt mess. It is unfortunate that a lot of heat was wasted in unnecessary nationalistic bickering between people from different countries, but the economic imbalance between the Eurozone countries needs to be documented clearly and addressed if the Euro is to remain viable in the long term. Actually, France's economics minister Christine Lagarde is saying something similar to the Financial Times. Not sure the Germans like it.
As for Sarkozy, he thought he could move things in France by making news headlines every day. Since there is always good news and bad news, he got his share of bad news, all right. He is seen as the representative of some French capitalist interests (who control most of the media), and his style has been dubbed 'bling bling'. His economics programme is not working, and his level of approval dropped quickly to below 40% in March 2008, and never got back up again. 'Work more in order to gain more' (one of his campaign slogans), quickly became 'Work more in order to gain as much as before' and then 'Work more in order to gain less', even though he increased his own salary. The Jean Sarkozy affair further helped convince voters never to vote for him again.
People are now tired of him taking 'agitation' for 'action', so they either don't vote anymore, or vote for the opposition or lack thereof. Note the return of Le Pen's party, at the 12% level, this after Sarkozy boasted in 2007 that he had them 'on their knees', and the rise of the Ecologists also at the 12% level.
Yes, the French are worried about their future, and rightly so. The grip of the 'elite' on the higher education system, with its peculiar split between the 'grandes ecoles' and the universities, has not been addressed properly. The population swap, i.e. several hundred thousand British retirees enjoying the French countryside in exchange for a similar amount of enterprising young people settling in London, does not help either. Even so, the country has a lot of potential. Labour productivity in France is better than in the UK, i.e. an OECD statistic for 2006 shows that the GDP/hour, compared to the USA, is 99% for France and 82% for the UK. So in France people produce more things in less time than in the UK. Part of the difference is that there is more emphasis on engineering, and less on services. [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Nik;
Ooops, did I say the F16 is around 20 years old? My mistake, that's what I get for guessing. It was first produced in 1976 so it's 34 years old. NATO is buying advanced versions of it but the USAF hasn't bought any in a very long time. It's nice to know however that the French aerospace industry has finally caught up and surpassed a 34 year old American plane. The bad news, they probably could not have done it without a large number of French industrial spies in the US. That's right, the French government actually spies on American industry. Won't help it though. French engineering still looks like something off Rube Goldberg's drawing board.
Complain about this comment
After the observation in Mr. Hewitt's article that it was just regional and local elections I recommend those who can read French to take a look at leading French newspapers. We can all be sure that this is what president Sarkozy has done today.
Let us wait and see for the second round. He appears to face a stronger opposition.
Complain about this comment
From an American perspective I thought President Sarkozy was doing an excellent job. I understand the Economy is miserable and that people are worried about finding jobs (including myself) but is this really Sarkozy’s fault? I think Wall Street probably had more to do with it than anything and the economy is bad everywhere not just France. I also think Sarkozy has put France back in a leading role in the International Community. When Chirac was in power no one in the United States really paid attention to France or cared about France’s concerns. Now that Sarkozy is in power Americans like myself have been paying more attention to French politics and French ideas. After all, Sarkozy did a wonderful job in brokering a peace between Georgia and Russia and has brought energy to the EU when France controlled the rotating Presidency. I think it would be a mistake to replace him with a Left wing party that has no ideas but just attacks the person much like the left in Italy. A 2-3% defeat in Regional Elections is not a kicking and not the end of the world. The problem for Sarko is the Front National will take away votes in the second round of voting. Either way I think the French would be making a big mistake bringing the socialists to power. France needs reforms if it wants to compete in the 21st century.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat, hi!
LHC is not EU
In a post above, you mentioned an "...embarrassing EU particle accelerator..." The Large Hadron Collider is not a project of the European Union (27 member states which do not include Norway and Switzerland). It is a project of CERN (20 member states which do include Norway and Switzerland). This example is nothing to do with the EU.
EADS is not EU
You also mentioned "...Airbus's predicament (no being allowed to streamline its operations and thus save money due to political pressures)...". I assume you're referring to the A400M (a badly overbudget 4-engined transport plane), which is built by Airbus Military, which is a division of EADS. EADS is a public limited company incorporated under Dutch law and headquartered in the Netherlands. EADS is not a project of the European Union. Airbus Military is headquartered in Spain. Airbus Military is not a project of the European Union. This example is nothing to do with the EU.
ESA is not EU
You also mention "...Galileo (GPS)...". Galileo (a planned satellite network providing global positioning) *is* a project of the European Union (27 member states which do not include Norway and Switzerland). It is being carried out by the European Space Agency (18 member states which do include Norway and Switzerland. And Canada, weirdly).
So of the three examples you gave of French statism, two-and-a-half of them were not EU and two-and-a-half of them were not statism.
There is a tendency on this board to assume that if it involves pan-European cooperation, it must involve the European Union. But CERN, EADS, Airbus Military and ESA are not part of the European Union. Even concepts such as the Schengen travel area (20 member states which do include Norway and Switzerland) which *are* part of the European Union are different from the European Union (27 member states which do not include Norway and Switzerland).
If the EU was dissolved tomorrow, concepts like CERN, EADS, ESA would continue to exist. Arguably the Schengen travel area would also continue to exist.
Regards, viewcode
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@ MarcusAureliusII post 31
MAII, you said "...The strong Euro makes it uncompetitive..."
Er, the strong Euro? I thought you said a week ago it was going to lose 90% of its value...:-)
You also said "...The contract going to Boeing will give American workers jobs that would have gone overseas. A winner for America, a loser for Europe..."
You know, I know, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri know, that protectionism hurts both sides. If the US is choosing Boeing over Airbus to protect American jobs then in the long run that'll make the US less competitive. Do I really have to quote Coolidge at you?
Regards, viewcode
Complain about this comment
To cool_brush_work:
You seem to have great misgivings about the France economy and doubt how can it perform as well as it does...
The thing you miss from your view is energy. France produces 78,1% of its energy with nuclear power, in comparison Germany produces 28,3% and Britain 13,5% of its electricity with nuclear power. While both UK and Germany have coal of their own, they also import fossil fuels and a lot. Compare this to France which doesn't have to import so much fossil fuels thanks to nuclear power, do also account that France has its own nuclear industries thus money spend on building, maintaining and updating the nuclear infrastructure stays largely inside the country.
Of course there is much more to an economy than just energy, and in this front France is managing well or at least satisfactorily. Making a casual look for the Fortune Global 500 list, you could see that there are some French companies there too.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2006/countries/F.html
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2006/countries/G.html
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2006/countries/B.html
Now my point isn't to wave tricolour and sing Marseillaise, but just to point out that maybe you have little skewed view of France. After all it is not all fine and dandy there, but it is a nice mainly functional country.
Complain about this comment
38. At 7:04pm on 15 Mar 2010, viewcode wrote:
" ...
ESA is not EU
You also mention "...Galileo (GPS)...". Galileo (a planned satellite network providing global positioning) *is* a project of the European Union (27 member states which do not include Norway and Switzerland). It is being carried out by the European Space Agency (18 member states which do include Norway and Switzerland. And Canada, weirdly)."
EUpris:
See:
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMFEPYV1SD_index_0.html
ESA and the EU
"The European Commission (EC) and ESA share a common aim: to strengthen Europe and benefit its citizens."
It goes on like that. The ESA may not be the "EU" but they are very close indeed. Some astronaut flew the flag of the "EU" on some mission. Imagine if he had wanted to wear an anti-"EU" T-shirt. Would that have been allowed?
What would happen if an ESA employee started saying he despised the "EU"? Does anybody out there know?
Complain about this comment
Re34: Smroet, you are 100% right and I apologise for trying to convey that part by memory, I messed up. At least there was no other intention there, I simply wanted to pass the dialogue. For things remaining the same over time I may of course refer to my message of mes.108 in the article "A European Monetary Fund". Citing sources for all what I have writen will take long though but I theoretically could easily do it (just do not have the time). Again sorry for the above.
Re35: Well Marcus that is something I like on you, you will always defend your house to avoid "its ceiling falling" on you (or like "the priest who blesses his beard") - good old expressions that apply to you. Good. But that is also your weakness as you really refuse to see inherent weaknesses that may exist in the American society.
Listen, I have no doubt about it, US cars cannot be compared to French cars, they are far far inferior, speaking always for similar categories. Let alone that US cannot make a mini car, so necessary in Europe where cities are older and were not built around the car. The US being a big country with lots of open spaces, with a lot of extremely fat people that live often in detached houses all fitted with garages so that they have not the anxeity for the parking on the top of their generalised security anxiety - all that offer the easiest task for engineers: you make for them a big fat car, put whatever big motor like 4500cc that works at 20% of its capacity giving the same horsepower that a 1800cc European gives, and who cares if you used 3 times the metal and plastic to built it and if it burns 20lt/100km (sorry metric only)... guys like George make sure there will always be cheap gaz. Well given the circumstances I think Russian Ladas have much more quality into them, at least they do not take much space for little to no reason... no matter if USA fits inside Siberia 2 times... Ok joking, Russians were economising on metal cos they were bored to mine for more once Stakhanof died... But US cars are simply that: baroque.
As for the F-16, I will not hide I consider the design and engineering of this plane as one of the most successful. It is not the best plane in anything but it is good at all and few planes can claim so. I am glad we have it though as usual we have bought it so expensive (now it comes at a reasonable) that we could had bought something else to do our job, preferably French or Russian (who have arguably the best, apart consumption but then who cares? Aegean is a small sea and you do the round in minutes). However Mirage 2000 is an equally superb multi-role aircraft which howver was initially designed as a light-weight fighter and it is for that reason that it has some short of advantage over the F-16 whose multi-role was conceived from the beginning. Both aircrafts have similar capacities, but in dog-fights Mirage 2000 seems to be doing a bit better.
Now I am sure you will google the Mirage 2000, wiki-site, to have a glimpse, you will find the reference of the Greek airforce and the 1996 incident of the Mirage that brought done 1 Turkish F-16. Frankly I was not at all referring to this incident. First you cannot but notice the aggressiveness of Turkish that on the one hand want to enter the EU, from the other they are in a silent war with an EU country (the whole case of Turkey's EU candidature being comicotragic). Then you cannot use this as a comparison to the capacities of the 2 planes for the very simple reason that Greek pilots are simply on another league and beat Turkish pilots any time even using old 1950s light subsonic jet bombers like the A7 Corsairs, doing an Immelman while aimed by F-16,chasing them off, with Turks putting the afterburners running for all they can. If you ever wondered, youtube the "greek pilot low flight aegean" and see something spectacular your pilots certainly did not do in Vietnam with those F4 Phantoms (note that the one in the video is a relatively basic configuration too, not much of modern material). There is no secret to it, Greeks are the only pilots in the world who operate in real battle conditions (no excercise) taking off ground and being on the radars of the enemy plane in 1,5 minute while rising (when the aircraft is more vulnerable). Not to mention that having not the capacity of the Turkish airforce usaully the analogy is taking off 2 planes to chase off 4 planes. Not to mention that the Turkish pilots, because they are so afraid, they are unpredictable, they have fired too many times thus earning a sidewinder on their face and if they are quick enough we fish them from the sea along with the fishes - we kept fishing them for 30 years now.
So... judging from the incident of the Mirage 2000 shooting down with characteristic ease a double-seated F-16 is no mean feat. By the way, the pilot that managed to eject and fished from the sea, did not speak a word in Turkish - wonder what he was doing there if not trying to train with the best! Ha!
What I tell you about the Mirage 2000 is simply the feedback the Greek pilots keep giving up to now. They love the F-16 but find the Mirage 2000 superior. Thus, they are really waiting the state to buy the - arguably expensive - Rafale or its cousin, the Eurofighter. But then, given Turks are alredy struggling with their brand new F-16s we should not be spending more unecessarily.
That does not mean that all French airplanes match the US ones. Certainly the Russians do that better. But it is a huge accomplishment of a country of the size of France, 6 times smaller than yours, to be able alone to develop high-end technological applications like that. And you have at some point to sit down and understand that others have engineers too and big-time brains and can sit down and design fancy thingies. And France has the whole range till space. No Ariane has not been used to take off astronauts, the French did not have the reason to send one, they did through ESA and preferred to do it via the venerable Soyuz or the fancy Space Shuttle (an arguably very difficult feat, best example of US engineering). But then US, apart the space shuttle had not much to show either - let the moon alone, I am not yet convinced of anything (as are many Americans including the one who wrote the Obama's report on the cancellation of project Ares and the famous "return to the moon"). There are no physical evidence of such, let alone any photo of any flag, buggy or other material the astronauts left there (and telescopes can zoom and take such photos). Instead, just like the videos, everything is blurred and reworked. Lunar rocks exist anyway on earth too while the mirrors are placed robotically of course (there are Russian mirrors too), not by hand. I will not come in deeper details but it is very possible that moon conspirologists might have it all correct - right now there are simply o evidence of the one or the other. But having read Obama's report I was shocked to find out it made no reference to the moon programme and that it askef for more realistic targets. I would say extremely shocking.
When Russians started co-operating with you in the 1990s they were shocked at the backwardness of the US progress in terms of prolonged manned missions in space. Had there not been for the Russians there would be no ISS up there and US would need double and triple the time to send anything that could be used for more than a year (e.g. 20 years after the Skylab they had not found the solution to humidity problems and such, Russians had solved already since the early 80s).
It reminded me the usual joke (might had been real too) about US and Russian space technologies: ... NASA scientists gave astronauts pens that could write in lack of gravity; these were pens using a certain gaz that pushed gently the ink when one was writing, quite expensive ones for developing and testing for compliance and all that, while Russian scientists wrote with a.... pencil preferring to spend their time on solving real issues.
Complain about this comment
A posting of mine has been removed. I will try it again and be more precise.
Complain about this comment
On 01.03.2010 The Viennese newspaper, Wiener Kurier reported:
Junker told the Handelsblatt (A German business newspaper?) "We have the instruments of torture in the cellar and we will show them if it becomes necessary.
Complain about this comment
I have emailed my evidence to the moderator. I hope it gets through this time.
Complain about this comment
38. At 7:04pm on 15 Mar 2010, viewcode wrote:
" ... LHC is not EU ..."
EUpris: Lots of stuff which may not officially be "EU" is very closely linked to the "EU". It is all part of the "European Dream."
It is a long time ago! Before we joined the Common Market, if my memory does not deceive me, we were told we had to sign up to the ECHR if we wanted to join.
Complain about this comment
36. At 6:12pm on 15 Mar 2010, Mathiasen wrote:
"After the observation in Mr. Hewitt's article that it was just regional and local elections I recommend those who can read French to take a look at leading French newspapers. ..."
EUpris: I advise anybody who can read Mongolian to read todays Mongolian Horsemilkers' Gazette, page 4.
Complain about this comment
"One in four Germans want the Berlin Wall back!"
http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2010/03/15/shocking-survey-results/one-in-four-germans-want-berlin-wall-back.html
Complain about this comment
i am one of them , and can we build it now 6 feet higher ?
when it comes to Sarkosy, do we really need another short french politician with a power complex ? come on now.
Complain about this comment
Nik;
I don't know what your problem is. I've seen a few imported Morgan Mini Coopers. It looks like suicide to me to take one out on an American expressway. You ever see those huge double and even triple semi rigs? My car has a 4.6 liter engine and develops 290 HP with 300 FP of torque. It weighs just shy of about 4000 pounds and gets 19 mpg mixed city and highway driving. It handles very well, accelerates very quickly an has been very reliable. It has over 150,000 miles on it and it was designed and built in the US.
The US builds advanced versions of the F16 for other nations but it is obsolete for the US airforce. The airforce builds stealty fighter jets that are undetectable on radar. The nighthawk F117 that helped take out the command and control facilities initially in the attack on Iraq in 1991 is now an old plane too.
Take a look at this one;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7510364.stm
Two minutes in you will even see it fly backwards.
"The F22 Raptor fighter jet took to the skies at the Farnborough air show. The US Air Force stealth aircraft is made by Lockheed Martin, and is arguably the world's most sophisticated fighter jet.
The fifth-generation fighter twists, turns and rips through the sky, at points seemingly floating through the air like a snowflake, thanks to turbofans that include thrust vectoring.
It can evade and battle ground defence systems, is kitted out for surveillance and intelligence work, and has hidden weapons bays."
That was two years ago. You can be sure even more advanced planes are in development. You have to wonder how much stress a human body can take before these kinds of planes fly unmanned like drones. Nothing the French ever built would stand a chance against it.
Complain about this comment
Mes 19 - Nik - nothing wrong indeed with any country aiming to protect the vulnerable. With a health system which is in deficit however, the contributions do not go to the real needy but to the labour intensive administration and funding unemployment benefits.
Until France actually streamlines the way in which the country is run which admittedly would add to the ranks of unemployment as the excess "fonctionnaires" hit the dole queues, employers and potential employees will continue to be penalised. I am all for generating employment and protecting those in peril, but not at the cost of simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The historic deficits, excluding of course the only three years since WW2 when the budget balanced, will continue unless France changes radically.
Whether Anglo or American saxon models would work, only time will tell but the current system clearly does not.
Not all things are bad in France as you say. It is just a real shame that the full potential of the country has never fully been unleashed despite numerous opportunities which could have been used as catalysts for change.
Complain about this comment
Berlin, 16 March 2010
The Danish government is now asking the commission in Bruxelles to take legal action against the so-called libel tourism in the United Kingdom. This is a very unusual procedure among the member states of the EU.
The new minister of justice Lars Barfoed has to the Danish paper Berlingske Tidende today said that it is unacceptable that Danish newspapers can be convicted in the UK for expressions, which are legal in Denmark.
At the core of the case we find the Muhammad caricature, and as I have mentioned earlier Saudi Arabian lawyer Yamani is planning a case against Danish Newspapers. The British embassy in Denmark has previously tried to forestall the case through a comment by the ambassador, but none of this have removed the threats against Danish (European) newspapers coming from British legislation.
It shall be very interesting to follow this case, which contains a number of principal issues.
Complain about this comment
@27 cool_brush_work
I think that I got you. You just tried to make a parallel btw a) the former USSR approach to make believe its own people and its allies that the growth of the soviet economy is something guaranteed, even irreversible and b) the efforts the French administration made to present proofs /by publishing its formal financial reports/ that the recession is something behind, that the growth is evident, and, that the economy is recovering.
You may be right of course, but I personally, being a former auditor, I believe only in figures, not in preliminary conclusions, based on preliminary assumptions.
@31 Jean Luc
“…again suffering from his black-white view on reality.”
Cher ami, I see the point, and I try to be impartial and fair. However, knowing well France (half of my family is still living there) I would permit to ask you if you make a parallel btw two evident facts: primo: the French working week is the shortest of the EU; second: the French commodities/services are among the most expensive of the EU?
/I still share the socialist ideas of Jean Jaures/Fr. Mitterrand but I apprehend the possible negative consequences for the EU- economy if we go on interpret that idea just as a motivation to work less for the entrepreneurs, no matter whether they are in France or in Bulgaria. China is going to be the workshop of the XXI century. Shall we give way so easily to the Chinese economic invasion /still backed up by the US large investments/ in our traditional markets all over the world /including our own market of the EU/? Shall we remain so naive, even stupid in our firm believe that old /united/ Europe is still a leading industry and the most attractive place to live in of the globe? I think it is high time to revise all our social visions and beliefs in order to match the present realities…. if it is not already too late to do it. / Sofia, March 16th 2010
Complain about this comment
I note with the decent exception of Jukka_Rohilla (re #41) no 'pro-EU' have been able to attempt an asnwer to my queries concerning the miracle (or is that mirage?) that is the supposed France Economy!
Just to remind the EU-luvvies:
1) How is it France works the shortest week & yet pays the higher wage?
2) How is it France productivity is greater than all but Germany & yet employees work the shortest week & employers pay the higher wage?
3) How is it France products cost more than most & yet sales are higher than most?
4) How is it France has such high Citizen & Business Taxes for such high State provision of Social Benefits etc. & yet Private Enterprise's profits exceed those of all but Germany?
5) How is France is apparently able to defy Economic Laws with impunity?
J_R says it is mainly down to France's 'Nuclear Energy' policy: If that were so then it is an economic lesson lost on almost the entire World! Such an 'over-looked' answer to each National demand & supply requirements given the avaricious-entrepreneurial pressures of the Capitalist system would seem to be another 'miracle' of sorts! So, I am unable to accept J_R's worthy effort on behalf of la belle France.
I have yet to see any alternative to my answer: The other EU26 at any and every level subsidise France.
Complain about this comment
@54 generalissimo
Note that I am not French. But your questions are of course valid. If you have figures on these issues, please share them, because it's impossible to debate on premisses such as 'french services are the most expensive'.
In general however it is evident that the negative effect of a short work week can be neutralized through higher productivity (efficiency). Higher productivity however often is a result of ousting low skilled workers from the labour market (social phenomenon as seen in France, Belgium etc). High prices for commodities and services in itself is meaningless; it all depends on the quality and luxury of the services and goods. I can well imagine a Chinese/American/Japanese willing to pay higher prices for French cheese/wine than for British cheese/wine. Without information on the commodities/services produced by france, talking about the prices is futile.
@55 CBW
You are calling for pro-EU to give you some explanations. Let me note the following things:
1. you refuse to debate with me (God knows why and God knows how you can call yourself a democrat: you can't even debate with me on a blog, let alone you would be able to accept another citizen's political view in the ballot box)
2. you are asking other people to refute unsubstantiated claims you made. You say France's real economic situation is much worse than officialy claimed but you don't give any proof for this. Then you ask others to do what exactly? Find evidence for your claims and then start a proper debate?
3. you ask EU luvvies (as you so respectfully put it) to defend France. As if being pro-EU would mean one is pro-France or one has to defend every official position of France. Your black and white view strikes again (CBW is against the EU and skeptical of France's figures, therefore in his logic everyone pro EU can not be skeptical of France's figures and even has to defend them).
Re "The other EU26 at any and every level subsidise France."
I know you don't want to debate with me. But I have shown how France actually subsidises the EU (because it is a net-contributor). It seems you don't just want an alternative to your answer. Because not only do you want alternative information (alternative to information you yourself do not give in the first place!), you refuse to accept this information from me (although I am just giving a link to an independent website).
So you know France is not subsidized, yet you insist on making this blatantly false claim.
You are a real good debater!
Complain about this comment
Herein are just a few examples of the 'miracle economy' of la belle France.
All figures are based on INSEE statistical data:
France Public Debt in 2009 was 83.2% of GDP (estimate higher for 2010).
France Tax Rates (2009) 30% on sums above 26,031 & 40% above 69,784 Euro.
France has Annual ('09) Wealth Tax varying between 0.55 & 1.80%.
France's Social Service system annually in Debt since 1996 & therefore every 'employed'/'retired' Resident Citizen pays an Extra Tax to cover the 'costs': This annual ('09) Social Surcharge for Tax-payers is from 5.50 to 12.10%.
France Agricultural Productivity is '2nd' in the World (USA 1st) with 70% Exported within EU26 - - however, the EU Common Agricultural Policy in 2009 was again cited by the WTO as "..opposes principles of Free trade.." and "..counter-productive to poorer Nations' farm economies.." - - France Agriculture receives more funds from CAP than next 10 of EU26 combined.
France State has 25% to 70% Stake in National Enterprises inc. Banking, Transportation, Telecommunications, Energy, Weapons/Military production.
France 'declared' Unemployment 2009-10 average 9.9% - - a rise from 7.6% in 2008 - - France 'unregistered' Unemployment estimated at 2.2 million in 2009-10 (illegals, between jobs, youth school/college-leavers etc.).
It is not that France is so very different from any other EU (inc. UK) Nation: The last 3 Presidential terms have all claimed a 'booming' France economy that is inexplicable against the 'declared' statistics never mind the actual, factual 'revised' statistics year-on-year!
How does France manage to pay for the Shortest Working Week in the EU, the 3rd Highest Social Benefits & maintain increasing Productivity whilst general & indirect Taxation is in the top5 for every Social-Economic strata area as set out within the EU economic-fiscal zone?
If France is indeed the 5th largest Economy in the World with the 7th largest 'Purchasing Power Parity' then somewhere or the other an amazing number of other Nations are incredibly badly managed/organised!?
Complain about this comment
Spectacular slam dunk, Jean-Luc, but you're wasting your precious time,some people have such extreme views, are so prejudiced, that he will discard anything you can dish-out, no matter how reasonable and measured your response may be. Bravo anyway, but it would definitely be to taxing for me!
Complain about this comment
It is a fact that nuclear power plants are much more expensive to build, operate, maintain, and fuel than coal, oil, or gas fired power plants. Relying on uranium instead of fossil fuel for producing electrical power may make France independent of unreliable sources of fossil fuel but it doesn't help its economy by making it cheaper, it hurts it by making it more expensive. The argument that it does help is upside down and backwards.
Complain about this comment
@31 Jean Luc
“Without information on the commodities/services produced by france, talking about the prices is futile”.
Since both of us rely on the statistics data better than on anybody else’s opinion, I would allow myself to comment the figures, which follow:
GDP per capita of 2006: US$ Elect/ty consumption per cap of 2004: kWh
UK 38849,97(!) UK 5100
France 36546,72 France 5300
Germany 35270,36 Germany 5200
Greece 22041,90 Greece 4800
As you can see, JL, if we agree that the German productivity is the best, the GDP/cap in France is just another proof that the prices in France /grosso motto/ are higher than those in Germany. The said conclusion is backed up by the fact that the electricity power consumption /which is a very good indicator of the standard of living/ is almost equal both in Fr. & Germ.
Of course, if we apply the same approach for the UK, the British prices, on the average, will be even higher than the French ones.
I do not intend to go into a useless dialogue kind of price/quality or price/productivity ratios. These things are evident. I do not dare either to comment the fact that the ratio "demand & supply" is still in favour of the French Champagne, or the French red wine, or of the French cheese. I just try to come to some facts concerning the higher French prices in the mainland.
Regards
Complain about this comment
Re Mes.55:
Cool,
1) How is it France works the shortest week & yet pays the higher wage?
It does not pay the higher wages in EU. Not even second or third. France simply has "fairly good wages above the EU average". I work for a French company. I am satisfied but certainly my German, Dutch and British equivalents get a bit more. Not that I am losing my sleep for that (certainly I get more than my Greek equivalents) but then France does not pay the wages paid elsewhere. This is my experience, I have not read official statistics.
2) How is it France productivity is greater than all but Germany & yet employees work the shortest week & employers pay the higher wage?
I work in industrial projects and thus I am inherently occupied with questions of time and productivity. Its 5 hours less per week. But apart from shopfloor workers, all the rest simply work 40 hours per week and take 1 day per month off. Workers' productivity largely depends on the corect management of their activities since even the best self-conscious, autonomous workers will lose considerable time if badly led by management. Then they work 7 hours, its relaxing so when they are there they are on their work and they have to finish it. Other employees, mid-management simply work 8 hours per day and take off 1 day usually at periods of lower pressure (where the absence is not any great loss of productivity). Do not forget that the majority of jobs have high and low periods, rarely jobs have a steady charge. The time reduction would have to be considerable to affect productivity.
3) How is it France products cost more than most & yet sales are higher than most?
From agriculture, to medicine and aesthetics, to automobiles and aircrafts civil and military, France simply produces products the market wants. They are often more expensive than others but they are usually distinguished for their quality.
4) How is it France has such high Citizen & Business Taxes for such high State provision of Social Benefits etc. & yet Private Enterprise's profits exceed those of all but Germany?
Did not understand that very well. Are you implying that next to the French state cooking its books, French private companies cook their books too? I am not specialist in accounting so I cannot give an explanation. All I know is that France has really a large part of its industry being in sectors enjoying pretty large margins. Employees are not always a more of a liability than competitive advantage.
5) How is France is apparently able to defy Economic Laws with impunity?
If I tell you my pencil is very special and costs 10 million euros you will laugh. If I convince 50,000,000 people that my pencil costs 10 million euros, you might take it more seriously. Economy is not at all physics or mathematics. There are NO absolute economic laws that can't be defied. Economy = trust.
- J_R says it is mainly down to France's 'Nuclear Energy' policy: I am unable to accept J_R's worthy effort on behalf of la belle France.
Hmmm... nuclear energy is the cheapest anyway. France has some short of partial autonomy which is a great advantage (UK drills its oil but stocks it or exports it, really do not know what it does it, but it seems to import from abroad for its own internal market since it is directly subject to international prices). But it is not only that, the "why" is a complicated issue.
- I have yet to see any alternative to my answer: The other EU26 at any and every level subsidise France.
France is a net contributor like Germany and UK. But there is also the indirect benefit - since France is the only EU country with a complete full range economy (and in some sectors like nuclear, space and military) it has the final word.
Complain about this comment
Cracklite
Re #58
And some people really are not 'extreme' or 'prejudiced', but they do not happen to have your view of what is the present reality.
They are so temperate of nature that they do not view your contributions as 'extreme' or 'bigoted' though you give every indication of having the classic 'pro-EU' 'superiority-complex': According to you the 'anti-EU', i.e. those of us who do not share your version of EUrope's political-economic-social future are mindless readers of pap-newsprint and/or suffering xenophobia that simply does not match up to the factual basis of their opposition to the EUropean Union.
I know it is difficult for you, but consider this: A 'slam-dunk' though spectacular is a brief moment in a very long game and from Historical experience is almost certainly NOT a winning move!
Complain about this comment
Nik
Re #61
Sorry, but with regards to 'Pay' & 'Social Services Benefits' You are just making it up again from broad generalisations as with Your previous slur on Britons' 'attitudes' to Europeans!
Kindly look at the French Pay-scales in relation to Hours Worked across the EU: France figures in the top4 on every measured-recorded level.
I don't mind whether you are paid more or less: That is NOT what is being queried by me!
I want to know from someone 'pro-EU/pro-France' Economy (again, I stress - - unlike You in Your take on the British - - this is NOT about the French People who are on the whole delightful): How does the France Economy fare so well when all the Economic indicators suggest that it is an Economic-Fiscal impossibility!?
Complain about this comment
EUpris, hi!
In a post above you say "...Lots of stuff which may not officially be "EU" is very closely linked to the "EU". It is all part of the "European Dream."..."
You are correct, and you raise an important point. Much of the recent chatter on the "European way of life" (broadly a state emphasis on provision and "positive rights" as distinct from the US model and "negative rights") has focussed on how each state treats its citizens and vice-versa. But this ignores how the states interact. The pattern recurs - when European states want to do something transnationally, they group together, sign some sort of founding document, and get on with it. Some will drop out half-way, some new ones will join midstream. So we have these examples:
CERN
*What do they want: "...Hey, let's get together and do some big particle physics..."
*Who wants it? Scientists from 20 member states including Norway and Switzerland
*What happens? Things are built, people are employed, stuff gets done
*Does it work? Yep. It's ramshackle, fragile, bureaucratic, but particles (hadrons) are collided.
EADS
*What do they want: "...Hey, let's get together and build some big aircraft..."
*Who wants it? Aerospace companies from UK, France, Germany, Spain
*What happens? Things are built, people are employed, stuff gets done
*Does it work? Yep. It's ramshackle, fragile, bureaucratic, but big aircraft (A400M) get built.
ESA
*What do they want: "...Hey, let's get together and launch some big rockets..."
*Who wants it? Governments from 18 member states including Norway and Switzerland
*What happens? Things are built, people are employed, stuff gets done
*Does it work? Yep. It's ramshackle, fragile, bureaucratic, but big rockets (Ariane) get launched.
EU
*What do they want: "...Hey, let's get together and pass some big laws..."
*Who wants it? Governments from 27 member states excluding Norway and Switzerland
*What happens? Things are built, people are employed, stuff gets done
*Does it work? Yep. It's ramshackle, fragile, bureaucratic, but transnational laws (insert your own list) get passed.
This is the way (rightly or wrongly) stuff gets done in Europe - it's a byproduct of state supremacy. States able to act as free autonomous agents with limited citizen oversight will form alliances with each other to get stuff done, and those alliances will take on a life of their own. The European Union is one such alliance, but it is not the only one.
You are correct when you say "...It is all part of the "European Dream."...". But I am not convinced that this system will change if the UK leaves the EU or even if the EU dies tomorrow.
Regards, viewcode
Complain about this comment
CBW "According to you the 'anti-EU', i.e. those of us who do not share your version of EUrope's political-economic-social future are mindless readers of pap-newsprint and/or suffering xenophobia that simply does not match up to the factual basis of their opposition to the European Union."
Off course, not all who criticise the EU, an imperfect and politically weak organisation, are xenophobes or imbeciles, but your assertions seriously lack nuance, are not backed by any kind of proof, they're just opinions, and since you seem to suggest that the French are lying about the state of their economy, that they let Europe pay for their way of life, how on earth can you look so surprised when I point out how insulting and unfounded YOUR view of reality happens to be?! Truly you remind me of those people who swear that 9/11 had nothing to do with planes or islamists,that it's all a big conspiracy, and they can be entertaining for a while, but in the end, nobody takes them seriously, hence the giggles, and sorry if it offended you.
Complain about this comment
CBW "How does the France Economy fare so well when all the Economic indicators suggest that it is an Economic-Fiscal impossibility!?"
Because we have a monstrous debt that will take about a century of sacrifice to reimburse, thought it was clear by now. It's exactly like Americans buying homes with loans they couldn't afford. There is nothing magical or mysterious. There will be a rupture point, our backs will be against the wall, there will be a huge austerity plan, we will cry for a while, and then La France eternelle (well almost...) will get back on it's feet. That was Sarkozy's plan, more or less, until the financial crisis, now he's gonna have to fight like a lion to be reelected, and only then will he lose his shackles and truly start to reform France...maybe. Anyway, for a majority of French, the situation is clear as crystal, ergo my initial response to you.
Complain about this comment
Cracklite
Re #65
Keep the insults coming!
Yet more examples of the 'superiority' of the 'pro-EU' argument whenever they face a reality check!
Meanwhile, if you would care to actually read my contributions on France (e.g. #6, #55, #57) you would find a number of claims by France, some statistical points & I raise some pertinent questions based upon them.
It is neither "..insulting.." nor "..unfounded.." to query how 1 of the 2 most senior/founding members of the EU27 Nations manages to keep an Economy at such a high level when it has nothing like the resources or population of Germany?
It is my submission France achieves this remarkable pre-eminence through blatant exploitation of the EUropean Union to its own ends.
"..9/11.."! Don't be absurd! Get a grip!
Opposing the EU is nothing to do with some obscene 'conspiracy' theory!
It is my contention France after years of suffering & crises, having realised it could not 'beat them', decided post-1945 to actively pursue (and in my view quite correctly) a policy of 'join them' - - i.e. to unite with Germany (west originally) in order to seek a new way forward for EUrope. The BeNeLux came aboard: Laudable, visionary and without doubt a significant contribution to stability & peace in west Europe from the early 1950s. That EEC was exactly what was needed then and is still required now for 'east' & 'west' EUrope to continue in harmony.
What is most definitely not needed and is most certainly, unequivocally dangerous for the peace of EUrope is the wholesale abandonment of National Government policy-making in favour of an amorphous, over-centralising and unrepresentative 'Political cabal' based in Brussels. The EEC became the EU & since Maastricht 1992 has moved further and further away from Democratic principles with each new Treaty, Directive, Judgement etc. (almost entirely without Mandate from the Citizen Electorate): It is my opinion Paris-Berlin have by a combination of political intrique-exploitation of the collapse of the Soviet Union & the weakness of National leadership (inc. that of the UK) moved toward hegemony in an UnDemocratic, Unaccountable & wholly UnRepresentative organisation.
Therefore, I make no apology for alluding to Paris-Berlin-Brussels as the 'axis-of-ill-intent'.
In my view the EU is now so rapidly negating the Rights & Responsibilities of ALL EUropean Citizens that civil strife is inevitable within this decade unless fundamental changes of 'political-judicial-military' direction by the EU are put in place.
You will not agree with me: However, unlike you, I would never consider it either worthwhile or ethical to deride Your views as somehow a part of a psychotic delusion such as the fools who blather about a 9/11 CIA conspiracy etc.
No, I leave that sort of debate & argument to You, & the illustrious JL who at times has managed to attract the ire of not just me, but also Menedemus, DemocThreat, Freeborn, Commonsense & others because rather like You he could not stop his self writing how much more clever & intellectual he was than the rest of us!
In all truth - - even MAII compares favourably to Your fellow-traveller!
Complain about this comment
• 64. At 4:18pm on 16 Mar 2010, viewcode wrote, (and I paraphrase):
EU & its institutions
*What do they want: "...Hey, let's get together and do some ………………..."
*Who wants it? (people) from member states including Norway and Switzerland
*What happens? Things are built, people are employed, stuff gets done
*Does it work? Yep. It's ramshackle, fragile, bureaucratic, but (things are done, systems are created, multi-state activity is seen to be good).
This has been one of the sweetest posting I have read in weeks.
No invective,
no spite,
no paranoia,
no xenophobia,
no back-biting,
no hurt.
Just pleasant, informative, beautifully argued debating.
I really look forward to more postings from viewcode
Complain about this comment
CBW "It is my opinion Paris-Berlin have by a combination of political intrique-exploitation of the collapse of the Soviet Union & the weakness of National leadership (inc. that of the UK) moved toward hegemony in an UnDemocratic, Unaccountable & wholly UnRepresentative organisation."
But you're not paranoid, not at all...not even a tiny little bit?
And please, I never compared 9/11 conspiracy theories with your euroscepticism, I made an analogy between the 9/11 conspiracy theory and this idea you seem to have that the French are hiding something, mostly the truth about the state of their economy and the means, mostly UK European money in order to survive. Well, I stand by that, won't budge, if you can't accept that the logical conclusion is that you fantasise about a supposedly malevolent franco-german "octopus" trying to grab and control every thing with it's long and squishy tentacles, then I give up.
So good bye and good luck with those terrifying and mysterious demons hiding under your bed and in your closet, hope they never catch you...
Complain about this comment
Cracklite
Re #69
All the 'paranoia' is coming from You!
Where have I suggested it was 'UK' Money subsidising France?
Answer: I have not!
It is not paranoia to suggest that the EU is not a benign influence on the future Rights & Responsibilities of Citizens & Nations.
Why should a 'pro-EU' such as yourself be able to pronounce on how good the EU is & not have those views challenged without being labelled as somehow defective in the mind?
Why can I not imply the same about You? Well, as I said, out of decency & respect for another's perpsectives.
That You go down the 'labelling' route is, as I have indicated, a fairly typical experience when debating with anyone from the 'pro-EU' camp.
'Fantasise'? All the fantasy is Yours, if you seriously believe any voices except those of Paris-Berlin decide every important EU issue!
I will agree on 1 point: "..Octopus.." is a relatively good term for describing the gradual erosion of civil libeties, National political authority & independent judiciary, by the EU-Brussels cabal, led of course by France-Germany.
Complain about this comment
@CBW
"Where have I suggested it was 'UK' Money subsidising France?
Answer: I have not!"
vs.
"The other EU26 at any and every level subsidise France."
Good thing you have decided not to enter into debate with me anymore, or you would have to find another excuse not to explain this blatant contradiction.
Complain about this comment
ERRR!
'EU26' equates to 'UK'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
Says it all really!
Totally, utterly, completely without foundation & yet written from that distinct 'superiority' perspective that I and every other Contributor has come to admire so much!
Complain about this comment
Re63: I see you call my description of the relative increased verbal and physical violence of English to other EU nationals in relation to what happens to other countries as a slur. Well I am sorry I lived 5 year sin Britain and live and move for 5 years around France, Belgium, Holland and Germany (due to work). I am still in contact with students in Frrance and I can see how are things. In France the only risk for such violence comes from Algerian immigrants (racial/religious/cultural based violence). It is extremely rare - apart the case of football fans that someone will be unprovoked attacked with knifes or with flying pints inside the student unions simply for being EU national. It happens in Britain. And not as rare as you would want to believe. But it does not change the fact that Britain is on the overall an open-minded liberal society where everyone is welcome, these cases simply represent a hidden face of Britain. Every country has its hidden face. In Germany they have the Neo-nazis. They do the sameand worse, only that they are not so interested in attacking EU nationals. In Italy actually there is some aggression towards EU nationals, it is the Romanian gipsies - albeit Italians react to gipsy aggressions so cannot be valued as "unprovoked". I am yet to find an EU country where there will be a flying pint hitting the back of someone just because the man next to him was diagnosed with a particular EU accent.
In my examples, I concentrated on EU nationals, nobody else. Violence is not the privilege of Britain. But one has to see the reality. I am not on slurs. I am on facts of life. It is not my problem if no company will do a research to this problem - afterall as British police told my roomate "you are Europeans, you cannot file a racist attack"...
Complain about this comment
Nik
Re #73
Sorrry, but again, have to point out You began this by attempting to imply that it was only in Britain that attacks on other EU Nationals occur.
You have since tried to water this down.
Now, you go almost back to the start and again imply it is the British & no one else in Europe that behaves in this ignorant, rasscist, violent manner.
Frankly, I am not going to indulge your biased view any longer: There is racial violence & ignorance across every community of the EU27 and everywhere else in the World. That you lived 5 years in G.B. & have lived elsewhere proves nothing, as it as useful as my anecdotal experiences of residing in England, Finland, Belgium, 'west' Germany, Hong Kong, Mid-East & the USA (last 4, all years ago).
Come on Nik, let's just move on.
Complain about this comment
Anyway CBW, lets leave this behind. I am in no mood of attacking the British people, and I do not label people out of one such phenomenon (as I do not label Germans neonazis or Italians antigipsies...) - I prefer to keep my citiscism for British double-edged politics in EU (and I do not mind the anti-EU, on the contrary, they are the most sincere), especially British gepolitics which I consider on the overall net detrimental to EU and in particular my own country that has suffered more direct political and even military aggression (again, little to do with British people themselves...).
In spite of what Cracklite and Jean-Luc say, I think your questioning of the "French miraculous economics" is 100% rational. Indeed, relatively high net salaries followed by generous social welfare combined with overall lower average working time and all that maintaining the financial and productivity numbers France presents does indeed seems a paradox.
Pardox maybe but are French the only ones? US is 10 times a bigger paradox with its super-over-inflationally printed currency. However as you will quickly point out, the US dollar maintains its value by having, for a long time, been established as the exchange means for world international trade, and it is not only about oil when Chinese are the big-time owners of US dollars (that is what Marcus means by saying Chinese economy is directly US-dependent i.e. it is not only about sales of products, it is also about purchase of material). Still linear economics do not apply to US and this non-linearity is maintained only by military means.
So coming back to France, while it has not played with its currency as much as US has, it does indeed cook books on other levels which partially answers your questioning. So? How to they do it with impunity? You know your neighbour cheats his wife, do you rush to tell his wife? If yes you will have to put up with their fights every evening, then you will have your neighbour as an enemy. If not, his wife will continue to be happy with him and everything will remain in order for them and for you. Why bother doing it? You do it only where you have something personal to gain. US has only to lose if France stops to cook its books. Why? France economy will be hit and as a reply French will turn to Russians and seek deeper business integration with them. So it suits the French and it suits the Amercians too. Why the French and not the Germans? Well, the French happen to have the miliraty, not the Germans. And the space too. These are value-makers in implicit and every complicated ways that fill up the space between cooked books and reaility. If at some time the reality is revealed it will have little to do with financial causes but rather with politica/geopolitical (as in the case of Greece's cooked books, different cases though...).
Complain about this comment
Nik
Re #75
Yes, my concerns about France's Economic claims have really made a few 'pro-EU' & Gallic contributors buzz with annoyance.
It seems an obvious set of questions from my perspective and for the 'defenders' of la belle France to simply quote EU statistics back as explaining it all is just ridiculous - - it is those statistics I am calling into question - - as they are supplied/based on figures provided from France's own agencies!
I do not deny the UK etc. are also in deep economic trouble: No one could or should, however, write a Comment attempting to open up debate on the EU's economic miracle State that is modern France and suddenly everyone piles in!
Could it be they really are dubious about how it all adds-up, or doesn't!?
It seems relatively simple Arithmetic from Junior School:
If 'x' is paid 10 for working 1 hour and works 40 hours, how much is 'x' paid? Answer = 400.
If 'x' is paid 400 for working 35 hours, how much is 'x' paid per hour?
Answer = 11.42.
Is 'x' being paid more or less per 1 hour? Answer = More
How much more is 'x' being paid per 1 hour? Answer = 1.42
How many less hours is 'x' working? Answer = 5
If 'x' is 1,000,000 workers:
How much more is being paid per hour? Answer = 1,420,000
How many less hours are being worked per week? Answer = 5,000,000
How much EXTRA MONEY is having to be found for the 1,000,000 per week, per month, per year...? I leave it to those who enjoy such things: My point is that France is in just such an Economic-Fiscal condition.
The money has to come from somewhere: My suspicion is that it is via the EU26 (especially with the connivance of Germany that cannot risk its chief 'axis-EU' partner fall from grace).
Of course, once we start calculating the New Rate of Pay for 'x' will include 'Overtime'/'Weekend' work then it gets even more puzzling as an Economic-Fiscal exercise trying to Balance the Budget/Books!
The Business 'x' works in now must find all that additional New Money whilst compensatory measures in Work Practises will have to be in-place simply to maintain the former '40' hour working week Production Level: Of course, in reality 'x' Business must now find the additional New Money by Increasing Production on a Reduced Work-Time Schedule!
Then if we Add-in that whilst 'x' is paid more for doing less his unemployed/sick/pregnant etc. partner is still claiming the same Level of Social Benefits etc. as when 'x' worked '40' hours it becomes a challenge to complete the IN - OUT columns with any degree of balance!?
The final Arithmetical 'nuance' (some of my critics have grown fond of the word though its actual meaning covers a multitude of sins!) is that whilst 'x' will not be Paying anymore Tax than when on the '40' hour week the Cost to the Business & State will have expedentially multiplied!
Now that is what I call an intriguing set of statistics: Unless the basic Arithmetic rules have been altered something is not going to add-up.
I have yet to see anyone address how it is possible for 'x' to maintain their lifestyle and the Business & State also maintain their roles?
Complain about this comment
@CBW
Re "ERRR!
'EU26' equates to 'UK'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
Says it all really!
Totally, utterly, completely without foundation & yet written from that distinct 'superiority' perspective that I and every other Contributor has come to admire so much!"
No one ever implied that EU26 equates to the UK.
However, UK is part of EU26, therefore if you say the EU26 subsidize France, you say the UK also subsidizes France.
If you did not mean this, you should have stated EU25 (= EU - the obvious france AND - UK, but you said EU26)
Complain about this comment
Quote from Cracklite at #69:
"...the French are hiding something, mostly the truth about the stae of their economy and the means, mostly UK European Money in order to survive.."
To repeat: I never claimed it was "..mostly UK European Money..".
I refuted that. It is that clear except to the really intellectual!
I do not have to "..have stated.." anything for someone whose opinion has absolutely no relevance to anything I might write.
Complain about this comment
Re:76. CBW yes, mathematically it will lead us to the conclusion that for 1 million workers, we spend per hour 1,42M euros more while for 5M hours per week.
I will present the other example:
- You have 100 workers paid 5 euros/hour and who work 14 hours per day finally producing 10K products/day sell 10 euros/product
- And another 100 workers paid 10 euros/hour who work 7 hours per day producing 10K products/day that sell 10 euros/product
What is the better? If you do not care about anything, well both are equal since they will give you the same financial output in a given time. It goes without saying that I do not say that French increased their productivity in relation to others. No. What I say is that in real life these 5 hours less per week did not impact directly the output.
How is that? Well, your mathematical model would apply more on manual iterrative jobs. Eg. a welder in a manual lproduction line welds 10 columns in 7 hours and 11 to 12 columns in 8 hours. True. But in real life what is the % of such a type of intesified manual iterative production in France? I would say small, since most of such type of jobs have been delocalised to cheaper counntries, namely China, India or closer to France, Morocco. For all the rest machines have taken the place and for the 24hours per day 3-shifts style there is no problem since machines are automatic, you just have to put people coming in their shifts in 30mins phase difference and you will have no problem (other wise what is the point of automatic machines?!), while there is always the downtime due to maintenance or changing production orders and such.
In reality, speaking always on production-mode (let alone project mode) the bulk of even shopfloor worker-level jobs require some short of work management. Thus productivity of workers is directly related to their management. You can have them 10 hours there working and doing the equivalent of 5 hours because 5 of that is lost due to bad management. Of course it would be handy to have the extra hour but the large % of time loss is not in that hour, it is in bad managament. In some sectors actually, due to improvements in technology and management it could be theoretically possible to reduce 2 hours the working day and lose nothing in terms of productivity - the issue there is clearly social.
So what French did is to reduce the hours maintaining the same salaries, which seems to suggest that the private sector loses money. Is it? Or is it that the phenomenons deceive? One to know better has to check the level of re-adjustment of salaries in terms of market - cos the general feeling is that indeed the 7hours/day were used as an excuse to stop balancing the market prices and the wages as it should be done. It is a bit like the 14th wages of Greeks, the state smartly thought of dividing the annual salary as such in order to maintain the "moral right" to say one say "ha! look! you are pampered! you take 2 salaries on top of your normal one!". See what I mean?
Now, I remember having read rsearches that a minimum 25% of time on average is lost on meetings useful and pointless and a minimum 25% of the time is just pure wasted time. The 7hours/day day made people appreciate more their time and the time of others and manage it as smartly as possible - especially in management level, which is the lever to higher productivity of the working team anyway - knowing that 1 small decision can have a huge impact on the hard, high-quality and excellently timed work of even the best workers. Let alone other issues such as people can have a bit more time to take the children from school or do shopping they are not thinking of (or worse, working on)vthat during their work.
But - and I left it as last - the main reason the 7 hours per day had little to no difference to a huge is the non-linearity of schedules and work pressure over 1 year which is however most of the times known. There are periods that work accumulates and periods where people play the "patienza" on windows kind of saying. Effectively, what is done often - in all levels of the working environment is that people work normally 8 hours per day through the normal and over-charged periods and ever such month and gain 1 to 2 days per month (and if you analyse it I think they lose, cos the calculation is not on the basis of doing 8 hours but a bit less, I do not remember this...). Hence, the date the worker is going to be absent, there is not going to be necesarily a noticeable loss of productivity and thus a financial loss. The company will produce the same, earn the same and pay the same salaries. Or so. Well you got the idea!
It is also interesting ot note that the above is even more true when we are ocupied with large scale project-base work and not with mass production of small consumption products. And France is more known for its military, spatial, nuclear, naval and construction projects than its mass production of consumerist products. Let alone the agriculturers who are not at all concerned by the 7-8hours difference as they are 24/24, 7/7, 365/365 on their farms... well you get the idea.
Complain about this comment
Gerhart Wiesend
Munich
The BBC News Dept.
ref.: your article on the French regional elections http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8579232.stm
Dear Madam/Sir,
having been a faithful listener of the BBC World Sevice for over 40 years, I read with great interest the above article on yesterday´s regional elections in France.
Having scrutinised the article twice, I failed to discover any mention of the remarkable success of the French extreme right of almost 10 per cent.
While BBC news coverage on Germany rarely misses an opportunity not to refer to the deplorable Nazi rule and its bitter consequences for millions of victims, French neo-fascists seem to be harmless local clowns, not worth mentioning.
I remember the BBC news coverage of a similar regional election in south western Germany a few years ago where our stupid neo-nazis polled three per cent. This was deemed newsworthy by the BBC World Service and blasted all over the globe.
As a former teacher of English in Germany, (who was bombed by the RAF, but missed, as early as at the age of two) I have always taken a keen interest in the BBC coverage of German issues.
While I have enjoyed many elucidating features on many subjects by your otherwise magnificent radio station, your news department seems to have followed a consequent line:
German bashing around the clock, leitmotives: "All Germans are Nazis" (Gerneral Eisenhower), "All Germans are murderers" (PM Begin of Israel)
All other Europeans are and have been harmless lambs.
- Mussolini in Italy (teacher and tutor of Hitler)? A funny entertainer who happily toured the Med with some friends.
- Uncle Joe (Stalin)? Did he really ever build concentration camps long before Hitler? Unimaginable.
Did he really take the other half of Poland a few days after Hitler in 1939? No one seems to have noticed until today, especially in Downing Street and in Bush House.
- The Vichy regime? Don´t they bottle mineral water there?
- French collaboration with the Nazis? French colla what?
- Voluntary handover of French Jews to the Gestapo without a summons? Can´t be true.
- French resistance? They invaded Normandy in 1944 and won WW II.
I am convinced, dear Madam/Sir, that my remarks will be acknowledged with interest by the BBC news departmen and will lead to no consequences whatsoever in the BBC´s news coverage of Germany.
Yours faithfully
Gerhart Wiesend
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS