Top EU jobs for women
Around the time of the French presidential election a rather cheesy French TV series featured the French president, Segolene Royal, picking up the phone to speak to her American counterpart Hillary Clinton. Segolene lost and the other fictional projection looks increasingly less likely with every day that passes.
But should a woman be the president of Europe? Or one the presidents, anyway. The European Commissioner for Communications Margot Wallstrom is about to launch a Europe-wide campaign to get a fair share for women in one of the tops jobs.
She'll be arguing her case in tomorrow's Financial Times and many other European newspapers.
Mainly because Tony Blair's hat is halfway into the ring, there's been a fair bit of speculation about who will get the new job of president of the council.
Like the nearly new job, the beefed up representative on foreign affairs, it is set up under the Lisbon Treaty.
Gossip about who might become president of the commission, if it's not Barroso again, and who'll be president of the European Parliament has been restricted to inside the petit ring, if indeed that is the Brussels equivalent of the Washington Beltway and Westminster village.
Wallstrom, whose first big political job was as Sweden's minister for women , argues that it is time to break the male cartel. She notes that when top EU jobs are discussed there's always lots of talk about the balance between small and large countries, between left and right but nothing at all about gender balance. So "men choose men".
She make a good point noting that Spain's new cabinet is unusual in having more women than men. (Is it the first in Europe? The world?) She is right that it is a fairly extraordinary state of affairs that politics is still so male-dominated.
She also say if there were more men than women in politics "things would be done differently". Is this true? To those who say women would mean a softer and more consensual approach I would answer with two words "Margaret Thatcher". But I do think that women in politics are less driven by their own egos, more concerned with issues than grandstanding. It is one of the reasons that Angela Merkel is so impressive: she gets on with solving problems. But a quick glance across the pond might see my theory crash and burn.
Ms Wallstrom also dismisses the argument that there aren't the women around to do the top jobs. She lists Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, Tarja Halonen, president of Finland, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, president of Latvia 1999-2007, Mary Robinson, president of Ireland 1990-97, Dora Bakoyannis, foreign minister of Greece, Ursula Plassnik, foreign minister of Austria, Margaret Beckett, former British foreign secretary, Emma Bonino, former Italian minister for trade and European commissioner.
One name is clearly missing. That of Margot Wallstrom herself. Her spokesman says she's made it clear that she's not interested in a job for herself. We'll see.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~28~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If there's a candidate, why not?
Male or female, as long as they're competent...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
[Third time lucky? Am I allowed ironics?]
Although I disagree with her politics, I have a certain admiration for Margot Wallstrom. She is, however, too honest and outspoken a person to be an effective EU President.
This new role demands an honest and straight-forward guy like Blair or a person of unquestioned financial probity like Chirac. Fortunately for us, while the EU is blessed with an abundance of low quality replicas of these two paragons, there is a scarcity of truly world-class acts.
Perhaps we could import a superannuated dictator from the European ex-colonies?
Complain about this comment
Could ScepticMax try rephrasing his comments in a way that'll get past the moderators?
Complain about this comment
Discrimination is bad. End of!
Best man for the job, always.... Maggie comes to mind!
Complain about this comment
"(Is it the first in Europe? The world?) "
Finland had a government with a majority of women, as well as women as both prime minister and head of state, for three months in 2003 under Anneli Jäätteenmäki. Sweden had a 50-50 gender split earlier in the decade, but I don't remember them ever having a majority of women.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps we (Europe + UK) should look at defining the Roles and Responsibilities of the job first, and only then nominating candidates. In this way the person's sucess or otherwise can be measured, and therefore they can be voted in again or out of the position. If we go looking for a candidate who creates the role for themselves, surely we will get into a bigger mess, and end up with that person failing in their objectives? Unless that is of course what is wanted. Define objectives first, then assign the most competent resource, male or female....
Complain about this comment
The most competent people should get the most important jobs. Their sex should be irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
The Commissioner for propaganda is always banging on about this issue. Those who seek the Brussels refuge from democratic politics, heading up the alternative to the verdict of the people known as the Directorate General for Communications should be the last to complain about political insiders fixing the system in ways not to her liking. If she wants power she should return to Sweden and seek a democratic mandate.
Complain about this comment
And Margot can always Rely on the Alien Vote whenever Venus Stirs to Life....... with ITs HyperRadioProActive NEUKlearer Drive for Shared QuITe Heavenly Controls.
I have yet to meet a Man who does not welcome and respect Women in Thinking Control and Acting Passionately upon Controlled Thoughts. Does that Indicate a Dearth of Men, Ladies, or is just that they are not Wwwidely Known and on Safari/Great Games Hunting?
Complain about this comment
Margot's "case" seems to be a superficial way of making a case for herself in the top job. Although she claims no interest, it's worth noting (as has been mentioned before) that no long-declared favorite ever wins European top jobs, so it's quite possible she's just hiding her ambitions. Additionally, she's right, there are qualified women like Angela Merkel; the reason they don't have European Union jobs is not because of discrimination, it's because they are perfectly fine where they are. Angela Merkel, by all accounts, would make for an incredibly strong candidate, but (according to the BBC) "The main factor against a Merkel presidency is that she is unlikely to put her name in the hat." Further, I think gender equality is not something that should be desirable in and of itself; not having discrimination is obviously desirable, but I fail to see what's desirable about installing people in certain jobs because of gender (in order to achieve gender equality) and not because of their abilities. And, as Mark admitted, his theory about women could be torpedoed; a lot of women are as different from each other as men are from each other, but most notably, to rise to the top in politics usually requires a certain level of cutthroat ruthlessness, negating any natural gentleness. Lastly, some would say that the Spanish Cabinet is an example of why one ought not to follow gender equality blindly; the defence minister was previously the housing minister, and has no previous experience with the military.
Complain about this comment
Nobody likes to be told what to do.
The most competent should be entitled to their rightful roles.
Complain about this comment
The ridiculous idea that men should be discriminated against because of their gender is dragging the western world down. If a woman is good enough for the job she should get it because of that, not because of what gender she was born into. Walstom has shown herself to be well below the standard that is required of an able politician, which in line with all the other commissioners is why she got the job in the first place.
It is time that the politicians got real, and disposed of the commission because the idea of an unelected democratically deficient body running an area the size of the eu is never going to be accepted by the public. The so called Lisbon treaty, better described as the eu constitution hands vast amounts of power to this body of failed politicians, and criminals like barosso, whilst removing it from democratically elected natyional government, the MEP's have no say in anything anyway.
Complain about this comment
The ridiculous idea that men should be discriminated against because of their gender is dragging the western world down. If a woman is good enough for the job she should get it because of that, not because of what gender she was born into. Walstrom has shown herself to be well below the standard that is required of an able politician, which in line with all the other commissioners is why she got the job in the first place.
It is time that the politicians got real, and disposed of the commission because the idea of an unelected democratically deficient body running an area the size of the eu is never going to be accepted by the public. The so called Lisbon treaty, better described as the eu constitution hands vast amounts of power to this body of failed politicians, and criminals like barosso, whilst removing it from democratically elected national government, the MEP's have no say in anything anyway.
Complain about this comment
Words like "macho" or "machismo" comes from Spain, but now this country has a government with more women than men and gays can marry, surpassing Scandinavian states, the most equalitarian societies in the world.
There's a historical debt with the female gender, it's time to pay back: ceding the top positions to women. They cannot do it worse than men.
Finally, Italians should take example, despite Berlusconi and the Pope.
Complain about this comment
To euroscepticbarry,
out of interest, why is Barroso a failed politician or criminal? I understand he had been elected in Portugal and resigned his position early to become president of the commission. He is most certainly not a failed politician and many in Portugal were sad to see him go.
Or are you saying that because he is from Portugal, he is a failed politician. Ironic, no?
Complain about this comment
Euroscepticbarry,
The Commission is unelected for a reason.
Back when it was the High Authority of the ECSC, the 6 member states realised that the only way to guarantee the credibility of pooled sovereignty was to delegate some authority to a body that would be able to monitor and enforce compliance of shared commitments. States are willing to lose out to the Commission some of the time because they know that it will stand up for the Union's (hence the states') agreed interests.
Furthermore, 90% of its work is about the regulation/deregulation of the Single Market and to do this it needs to be somewhat insulated from left-right political competition, focussing on removing barriers to trade rather than on taxing and spending. It has a staff similar to the size of an average city council so it could never 'run' Europe like a national government, it just deals (mainly) in very specific and technical areas of cross-border trade and related issues.
If it were elected, the Commission would surely have the right to tax and spend, to impose a universal welfare/health/education system, to raise an army etc. I certainly don't want that! As it stands, the Commission is the agent of the Union, its actions and their scope limited by democratically elected (well, except in the UK!) national executives.
My problem with the EU and the Constitution, sorry 'reform treaty', is that it lets current governments limit what governments can do in the future:
It's almost impossible to undo a directive and seeing as it's the Council of Ministers (made up of national ministers) that really decide things, the EU is used by govs to lock in their preferences so that future govs are restricted by the 'acquis communautaire' (that's why Blair signed the Social Chapter- but my point is, surely the people should be able to decide these things!). The more policies unrelated to the Single Market that are decided in Europe, the more restricted future politicians are about things that matter most to voters, and so voters can't elect people to do what they want because of EU laws.
The beauty for politicians is that they can do things in Europe they wouldn't get away with at home and then blame Europe!
As for Wallstrom, I'm personally sick of testorerone politics! I think more women SHOULD be in top jobs. Unless it's Ruth Kelly or Hazel Blears...
Complain about this comment
" It's 3 AM. The phone in the White House rings. Who would you like to answer that call?"
That was an ad Hillary Clinton ran trying to convince American voters that they'd be much safer in her macho hands than with wimpish and soft looking sen. Obambi.
Didn't quite work.
Merely couple of days later an anonymous ad appeared in public domain in which, when a phone in the White House rings, a voice, not unlike that of Mrs. Clinton, replies icily:
"Bill's not here; as I said it's 3 AM!"
Soon afterwards Hillary's campaign managers pulled the original ad off.
P.S. I don't think I should quote here her most recent ratings?
Complain about this comment
Ideas such as the one proposed by Wallstrom do not work because ultimately they fail to deal with the root of the problem. That women are not proportionally represented is not the problem, rather the mentality and culture that has led to such a situation is the problem. Forcing bodies to accept women doesn't change the fact that fundamentally those bodies were not willing to hire a women before. I can't believe that such feelings just disappear once a woman has been parachuted into such an organization. Instead, plans like this one act as window dressing and may actually impede proper recognition of the real issue, which is that decades after the supposed "liberation" of women, despite more or less equal access to education, women are still woefully under represented. Now we add to the mix plans which in and off themselves run counter to the principal of gender equality, by favouring one due to their sex, and not only have we failed to solve the problem we have actually taken a step back.
Supporters of these plans would say that having more women at the top will greatly remedy the position of women entering at the bottom. Sadly, the reverse may well be true. Numerous studies suggest women in power may be less likely to assist women near the bottom. In the UK, women make up the great majority of selection committees that choose party candidates for parliamentary constituencies, but less than 20% of those they choose are women. More masculine selection committees are actually more likely to choose women. Similarly, women hold dramatically stronger feeling of negativity towards female public figures and celebrities than do men. It seems women are a key part in reinforcing inequality, perhaps in a larger part because there is very little social pressure or awareness for women to consider their own approaches to other women. That men will intentionally reinforce typical views of themselves surprises no one; the idea a woman might do the same does.
The real answer to the problem may have more to do with disconnecting our ideas of what a "strong" leader looks like where those ideas are more connected to the "strong" leaders being men, rather than those being objectively good qualities that serve best our society.
Complain about this comment
@finbinfin (#18)
Excellent post, because it argues on EU matters from an EU perspective. Obviously, the narrow national perspective that we hear from MaxSceptic and FreebornJohn ad nauseam is ill-suited to understand and appreciate the issues.
There is one point on which I have to disagree with you: Hasn't it always been the case that "current" governments somehow bind future ones? Any constitution is the result of the political equilibrium at a certain time. Still, future politicians have to accept it, even if things have changed.
The Lisbon Treaty has one particular beauty: It would allow an orderly exit of those who don't subscribe to the system any more. Thus, we may see a very happy MaxSceptic and a very happy FreebornJohn one day when they have managed to convince their compatriots that there is a viable alternative to the EU.
I admit that it will be long way for our friends as they haven't even started thinking about this alternative yet, but at least they now have a perspective to escape the misery the EU puts them in every day.
Complain about this comment
"Perhaps we could import a superannuated dictator from the European ex-colonies?" [#4]
How about Venezuela's saviour, Col. Hugo Chavez? Would he fit the bill?
He's a former para!
[Even king of Spain couldn't get him to shut up]
Complain about this comment
#21 gruenebaum1
That's a fair point, governments obviously don't begin life in a vacuum. The body of law, precedents, formal and informal rules and the constituional structure of government (not to mention fiscal limitations and the influence of big business) all limit a government's actions. But it's certainly more straightfoward to adopt legislation domestically. If there is the will to carry out a certain policy, it theoretically only takes an Act of Parliament to undo a previous course of action, compared to at the EU level where you'd have to urge the Commission to come up with a proposal, then pass it between the council and parliament, and then get a super majority of member states to agree.
I wonder who will be the first to leave under the new get-out clause? A post-United Kingdom England led by Kilroy et al?
Complain about this comment
Mark, you mention Margaret Thatcher as someone who didn't fit the "soft and consensual" ideal of women as managers. But, as I recall it, she was described as "the only real man in her cabinet"?
But, why is consensual regarded as being "soft"? Is the ideal to chase a "win-lose" solution to problems (leaving a wish for revenge in its wake)? Or is it to search (through constructive debate) for a "win-win" solution, that may be less than desired by all parties but sufficiently acceptable, nonetheless? My experience with women managers is that they generally take the latter approach, leaving most people unwilling to continue fighting each other.
Which does the EU need?
Complain about this comment
hmm i think children would mak a good a job of running the EU.ITS UNWANTED IN THE UK
Complain about this comment
Having a political body representative of the society, whether it to be by genders or cultural/racial minorities, sure is a desirable goal imo.
But rather than having positive discrimination, I would agree with #21 olyus1 that changing the perceptions of what a "leader" should be is as much important.
Now, between positive discrimination and political culture change, which one to start with ?
Complain about this comment
Look at Michelle Bachelet from Chile. She's bringing her country to the top of the world!Mrs Kirchner, from Argentina, should take example of her, instead of her husband.
Someone here is obsessed with Chavez. I'm not devouted of him. But the Venezuelan (democratically elected) president is the Virgin Mary compared to some American's friends, like Egipt's Mubarak, or Saudi's king (whoever is now).
Democratic lessons? No, thank you.
Complain about this comment
Finbinfin (18): There are some valid points in your post, but under the Lisbon Treaty futures presidents of the EU Commission will reflect the political complexion of the EU Parliament. Also the number of people on the Commission payroll is a red-herring. There are plenty of examples of small numbers of people dominating large populations throughout history. The British Raj ruled 300 million Indians with just 1500 British administrators of the Indian civil service plus 3000 British officers in the Indian Army. They managed this by co-opting far greater number of locals which is exactly what Brussels does. The EU Commission is but the centre of a vast network that relies on millions of civil servants in its member states whose tasks flow directly from EU regulations.
Complain about this comment
Gruenebaum (21): The governments of those countries that have a body of Constitutional law separate from regular law are of course bound by their pre-existing constitutional arrangements. But there is no democracy on earth where regular law binds subsequent government.
International treaties, including the treaties on European Union, are higher in the legal hierarchy than national law and therefore bind future governments. They can be considered to be of a constitutional nature. Regular EU law is also higher in the legal hierarchy than national law and so also binds future governments in a similar way. As ever more EU law is created it both replaces national law and binds all governments we will elect in the future.
Given a few decades at most, this process will gradually extinguish the legislative power of the governments we elect in all those policy areas where the EU has assumed either exclusive or shared competence. The governments we elect will steadily become powerless to implement any change, or indeed do anything other than vote against EU Commission proposals in the Council of Ministers. No government acting alone can block Commission proposals, or even modify them without the unanimous consent of all other EU governments.
Please re-read this post several times until you understand the long-term significance for your vote. Perhaps then you will appreciate my fundamental objection to the EU system. When you have understood it please tell me why you are happy to live under this system.
Complain about this comment
She should be arguing for the UK having a referendum.
Large numbers of women in the UK want a referendum.
They can give the top jobs in the "EU" to monkeys, male or female, because it has no right to exist.
Complain about this comment
Suffolkboy, why should a non-UK national should push for UK residents to have a referendum on UK membership in the EU ? That would be foreign meddling in national matters ...
Can't UK residents be democrat enough to push for it by themselves ? I thought you had no lessons to get in matters relating to democracy ...
Complain about this comment
Dr. Marcus Söder, the Bavarian Minister for Europe is quoted on German news websites as wanting the Brits to pay even more into the "EU".
Yet more for something that is worse than useless!
Complain about this comment
Betuli (16 and 27) wrote about the supposed "historical debt with the female gender, it's time to pay back: ceding the top positions to women. They cannot do it worse than men." This statement is ridiculous; rights violations were committed in the past against women (denying them the right to vote, for example), but that doesn't mean that men should be denied the right to vote for as long a period of time as women were not allowed to vote. To prove the second part of his statement, Betuli then later (in post 27) cited Michelle Bachelet and Mrs. Kirchner from Argentina as examples of female leaders doing amazing jobs.
Betuli's surely joking.
I'd like to point out that the Bachelet administration is in danger of losing power due to its poor governing so far, making a mess of the transportation system in the capital, causing massive strikes by teachers, and having plunging approval ratings. Furthermore, Mrs. Kirchner won election because she promised to be EXACTLY like her husband.
I'm not writing this post because I believe that women can't be trusted with the top jobs; obviously they can be very competent (Angela Merkel) and force through much-needed reforms (Margaret Thatcher). I just strongly disagree with giving somebody an extremely important job based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other such classification. Getting a top job should be based on merit. Perversely, giving jobs to women over men because of their gender may end up hurting them, since it means that people will doubt whether the women got their job because of their merits or because of their gender. If anything, preference should be given to those born in circumstances where the opportunities given to rich people were not given to them (such as poor people), and where there is a concern about an actual imbalance being created. About Margot Wallstrom's claim that men give jobs to men, if she can prove discrimination, then she's free to allege what she wants; meanwhile, it should be noted that she IS the Commission's Vice-President.
I apologize, this is a blog about Europe, I didn't mean to write so much about gender-based employment.
Complain about this comment
"Hasn't it always been the case that "current" governments somehow bind future ones?"
Certainly has. As Pierre Rosanvallon says, 'in politics, the future is governed by the tyranny of the present'.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
An excellent blog!
Women and men should have the EQUAL right to run for the PRESIDENCY of any country!
Complain about this comment
Looking back at women national leaders don't you think that gender is unimportant in that when a person has the job they do what is deemed necessary.
You mention Margaret Thatcher. I would mention Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir and Mrs. Bandaraike.
None of these, when in power, behaved in an overtly feminine way, they responded to the pressures of the job and made the decision they thought were right.
The only reason to consider women for posts, as opposed to men, is social justice. They are just as good, or as bad, as men. When they reach powerful postions gender does not matter.
Complain about this comment
The EU top jobs all have one thing in common: one does not actually have to be elected to get one. The consent of the governed is not required.
And of course, EU politicians don't pay income tax and keep enriching themselves at our expense. Just look at the EU's "toy" parliament (which isn't a real parliament). The further south you go, the more likely it is that MEP's are only there to enrich themselves. O yes now they can't hire their own family anymore, but of course they will get around it by hiring eachothers family.
The real power lies with politburo/commission and council, who can make laws that cannot be stopped by any parliament. Therefore, there is no longer parliamentary democracy.
Complain about this comment
I see that Ronald Grünebaum continues to fail to adress the central question.
Why, Ronald, was the EU set up in such a way that the politburo/commission and council can pass laws without the need of any parliamentary approval and without parliamentary control?
Doesn't that mean a de facto abolishing of parliamentary democracy?
Marcel
Netherlands
pro economic cooperation
anti political integration
Complain about this comment
"I'd like to point out that the Bachelet administration is in danger of losing power due to its poor governing so far, making a mess of the transportation system in the capital, causing massive strikes by teachers, and having plunging approval ratings. Furthermore, Mrs. Kirchner won election because she promised to be EXACTLY like her husband."
So did Mrs. George Wallace in Alabama.
And Mrs. Juan Peron (Evita) before her.
I'd also like to point out that Gloria Arroyo is not known in the Philipines for having exactly a "femal touch" or being a staunch advocate of human rights. Neither was Indira Ghandi as many an Indian (particularly Sikhs) would testify.
[I won't even mention former Bagladesh premier, and top terrorist FARC commander,
or certain Ulrike Meinhoff of RAF - no, that's not Royal Air Force - notoriety]
P.S. Have I mentioned Mrs. Bill Clinton?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To: Starbuck11 who wrote:
"... why should a non-UK national should push for UK residents to have a referendum on UK membership in the EU ? That would be foreign meddling in national matters ...
Can't UK residents be democrat enough to push for it by themselves ? I thought you had no lessons to get in matters relating to democracy ..."
I do not claim that we have nothing to learn in matters relating to democracy. I believe we have a lot to learn probably mostly from Australia and Switzerland. We are only the prisoners of the "EU" because our so-called democracy is rubbish. It has resulted in some pretty disgraceful people getting elected. If I end up in prison for opposing the "EU" then I expect tlo be surrounded by fewer liars than if I had got to be a British MP.
"why should a non-UK national should push for UK residents to have a referendum on UK membership in the EU ?"
Because the "EU" interferes everywhere else. It comments on China, Burma and Zimbabwe.
We were promised a referendum which we apparently are not going to get. The "EU" should be protesting about that. Other "EU" countries should not be ratifying the Lisbon thingy until we have had a referendum. They should do it in their own interests. A German, who claims to know, tells me that in the "EU"-commission they are constantly bad-mouthing the Brits and complaining about how difficult we are. We can be a lot more difficult yet - and we should be!
"Can't UK residents be democrat enough to push for it by themselves ?"
I am very dissapointed about how lethargic they are. However, one day they might well explode and it won't be nice. I don't want that to happen. I want to have a friendly relationship with the "EU" from outside the "EU". I am half-continental.
Complain about this comment
"Look at Michelle Bachelet from Chile. She's bringing her country to the top of the world!" [#27]
You have no clue! Chile (a country I know very well first hand) is where it is today (well on its way to AFTA membership) thanks to certain military dictator called Augusto Pinochet but for him Chile ( under Salvatore Allende and his commie allies) would have looked today exactly as Cuba.
BTW. Have you been to Cuba, and managed to talk frankly to its inhabitants?
[FYI: that's that Castro's huge GULAG next to Gitmo]
Complain about this comment
Salvador Allende (not Salvatore as in Chile -this country you know first hand- speak Spanish, not Italian) was the democratically elected president.
Augusto Pinochet was the cruel dictator who came to power thanks to a coup d'etat (1973) with the necessary help of CIA (see American movie "Missing").
Infering that thanks to Pinochet Chile is on fast track to development is like saying Germany is one of the first powers now thanks to Hitler.
Cuba? Yes, I've been there... feeling much more free than in Egipt, Saudi Arabia and the rest of theocracies in the Arabian Gulf, where Bush likes very much visiting and making business.
Complain about this comment
@betuli (43):
it will then certainly warm your heart that Cubans are now free to buy (obsolete models) computers. Of course, internet access is still not allowed.
Its always the same with the 'progressive' left, they all claim to love Cuba, but they don't actually want to live there.
By the way, Allende wanted to establish a communist dictatorship. I admit Pinochet wasn't great but certainly better than the alternative.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
mcdv1975,
Once again: I condemn Cuban regime and dislike Chavez... I wouldn't live there, but don't make me choose between Venezuela or Saudi Arabia.
It's laughable, if not tragic, the Neocon worries over democracy when they supported dictatorships in Latin America till yesterday and they still do it today in other parts of the world like Middle East.
Bachelet, despite some domestic problems like everybody has, is doing very well, so Brazil's Lula and Peru's Garcia are. And they don't lose time fighting against Chavez: they must know much better than you what's going on in that region, which was ignominiously considered till yesterday "the USA backyard".
So save your time and don't try to lecture about democracy.
Complain about this comment
#43.
Allende (democratically elected, just like Hitler) was neither Salvatore nor Salvador, nor Saviour.
He was, like any other socialist ruler, an unmitigated disaster. And his regime and its supporters were responsible for quite a few kidnappings and desaparecidos as well.
Obviously you haven't seen what Chile was like (particularly economically) when he was finally kicked out. And what it looked like merely 20 years later. And you don't know (or at least pretend not knowing) nothing about reforms Pinochet, who was clearly not a liberal democrat or a socialist con, gradually introduced and implemented. Perhaps that's so many Chileans have a positive view of him despite harshness of his early rule. And that's why there were such huge crowds at his funeral.
BTW Pinochet has relinqushed his power voluntarily. On the other hand I cannot think of any leftist dictator who's ever given up his power voluntarily.
Can you?
Ineptness of Lula's government is obvious to many disenchanted Brazilians (particularly educated ones, while its corruption is proverbial (been there, seen that).
P.S. I am not aware that Bush visits such Middle East theocracies like Iran or does business with such dictatorships like Syria, although I know that he's toppled at least one murderous dictatorship in the region.
And as for Saudi Arabia, as unpaletable as its regime is, it's being temporarily tolerated in the absence of better alternative. Nota bene I am not aware of any EU country boycoting SA or not doing business with the Saudis, particularly refusing to buy its oil.
[unless something's changed in the last 24 hours]
Complain about this comment
My personal choice would be Mary Robinson who did a good job for Ireland which should well qualify her for the job a President of the Counsel.
The post is definately NOT President of Europe, and never will be. We believe that the powers of even National Goverments should be no greater than absolutely necessary and even than watched with an eagle eye. The history of the 20th Century and Herr A Hitler have ensured this.
Spain managed to keep our of the Second Would War at the price of a savage Civil War and the 36 year dictatorship of General Franco. Thirty years ago the Spanish voted in a Reforendum for a democracy, Proportional Representation and devolved Regional Goverment.
It is under this Constitution that we happen to have an an equel number of men and women int the Goverment, that is if you include Zapatero himself. It was his deliberate policy and there is no reason to doubt that he made some very good appoinments. Our new Minister of Defense did raise a fe eyebrow when reviewing the troops not because she was a woman but because she was seven month pregnant at the time.
Complain about this comment
And here comes another bout of rabid activism from the Yanks.
they can't think of democracy as meaning anything else but US style (Gore 2000) or the influence of corporate money and divisive politics as anything else but "free and fair".
No need to try to redress their wrongs, they are just goldly right on anything ...
In fact such comments from powermeerkat and Cie, are just getting dumber and dumber after every posts.
About Chile, Salvador Allende was elected. If for a government, trying to pass legislations for which they have been elected is tyrannical, then I guess you have been living under sham government thus far.
And liberal democracy is not the only kind of democracy, except that is in the world of fanatics for ideological imperialism. No need to be supportive of dictators to realize this.
Complain about this comment
Gender equality is very much oxymoron at the top levels of world politics, period. However many women and men too have convinced themselves that women make 'better' candidates than men, as a rule. I beg to differ: gender equality can simply mean that women are as equally able as men to be ROTTEN leaders. However, women at present to NOT have the equal chance to become leaders AT ALL. Spain's present administration seems to be doing better than most, at least numerically. It remains to be seen how numbers will translate into ongoing, longterm positive impact. Meanwhile, women are certainly overrepresented amongst the trafficked and the victims of violence, throughout the EU.
Complain about this comment
I completely agree with Grrlie (50 above). Tiday Gender equality is a fact of life at here in Spain. Women drive buses and trains, work at all levels in business, including being Presidents of banks and Companies.
Minister are referred to by their names only, Zapatero, de la Vega, etc never prefixed with the equivalent of Mr, Mrs or Miss, as the BBC is wont to do. There is very little colour predudice here.
However there is still a dark side. In every country there are those who prey on the weak and vulnerable and Spain is no exception. The Authorities are trying to make it acceptable to report case so the protective and legal action can be taken before it is too late. But this is not easy with an older generation who lived under the Franco dictatorship when to police were an organ of repression.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Thank you for your blog. it's a wonderful place to share our thoughts over this agitated Continent. It seems Europe raises passions and constant interest for everybody, included those ones afflicted by Europhobia.
I cannot wait for you to write any article about (Eastern)Eurovision. We could hold now a dialectical battle between the East and the West.
Is it time for the 4-big to quit the festival, and its funding, of course?
Complain about this comment
Equality of opportunity is not a bad thing - giving people equal chances to get jobs based on their merits is fine. The problem with gender equality is when it affects other people; namely, for example, when the strength tests for women to become firefighters are made easier than the men's strength tests, when women need to do less pushups than men to join the army, etc. If you really are that strong/qualified, of course you should be allowed to get the job. I think the problem a lot of people have with gender equality is that it can lower the quality of work done as a whole, because of exceptions like those for firefighters and soldiers (probably more professions, but I don't know about those).
Complain about this comment
Eurovision:
The apparent inability of certain continentals to vote fairly in a relatively insignificant song contest is highly significant. Lack of fairness is much more widely spread on the continent than in the UK. The continental character is the fundamental reason why we should not be in a political union with the continentals. No amount of reform of the "EU" could ever be enough.
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2, its not just Britain who were promised a referendum. In Netherlands and Portugal also, people voted for parties that in majority promised referendums. Promises that were unmade the day after the election.
I cannot understand how the EU-philes can be happy about a system (EU) which so blatantly disrespects democracy and is now effectively rendering parliamentary democracy useless. I keep repeating the question to them, where is the parliamentary control on politburo/commission and council laws, they never answer the question.
The EU isn't, never has been and if the political elite get their way, never will be democratic. And it was never supposed to be. I mean what better way for a political elite to run the show then to create an unaccountable government layer on top in which they can appoint eachother.
The EU-philes will then make dubious claims and try to give democratic legitimacy on the EU by saying that elected governments appoint the politburo/commission and council, but that isn't a very good argument because that argument shows how thorougly and utterly undemocratic the system is. After all, no national parliament or government ever asked for or received a mandate to hand their powers over to a centralizing undemocratic entity such as the EU.
I dare say, there is no mandate whatsoever for any kind of political integration. So dear EU-philes, please explain how you are willing to shelve parliamentary democracy?
Complain about this comment
54. "The apparent inability of certain continentals to vote fairly in a relatively insignificant song contest is highly significant. Lack of fairness is much more widely spread on the continent than in the UK."
UK giving points to Ireland (and vice versa) is of course an exception to this rule. And of course all the members of the super Russia voting block are in the EU (some of them are, granted), like wise its only the UK that suffers from the lack of having a voting block, not like the entire western Europe and central Europe are also victims of this... joke.
News flash: UK isn't special, you're not radically different from the rest of Europe.
Also if its insignificant why make a big deal out of it?
Complain about this comment
@ mcdv1975
It's very convenient to use your ignorance of EU matters as a basis for your hackneyed criticism of the system, itself based on far right propaganda. If for one second you actually understood the decision-making process, you would see that it is really a hell of a lot better than what we have in this country.
The Commission (politburo according to you) is appointed by the Member States (that includes the UK). They work with civil servants (as in the UK but less paid). The Council of Ministers (comprised of elected MPs) ask them to prepare something. The Commission does. It can then be modified/rejected not only by the Council, but also the European Parliament (packed with elected MPs). Along the way, there will be opportunity for businesses and citizens to have their say through the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
It's no surprise that given that there are individuals who assimilate the above system to a Communist regime, the Government doesn't dare hold a referendum.
Complain about this comment
"The European Commissioner for Communications Margot Wallstrom is about to launch a Europe-wide campaign to get a fair share for women in one of the tops jobs."
Is she going to do that with her own money or with ours?
What happened to her statement made after the French and Dutch NOs that the "EU" had to listen better?
Complain about this comment
#54
Suffolkboy2,
You'te taking too much seriously UK' defeat in Eurovision. You yourself said it's an insignificant event. So, I don't understand why you seem so moved over the unfairness of Continentals face to justice-gifted Britons.
It's just an anachronic song contest. Don't rush in making temperamental conclusions which excede a minimum of fairness and balance.
In Eurovision there's nothing particular against UK as a specific country. As I said before, the front line is where East meets West in Europe: All Western European countries have been getting poor scores in the last years. Is it a revenge? They don't like us? What's going on?
Complain about this comment
Lets face it, those of us who hate the "EU" are not going to persuade the "EU"-lovers who read these pages that we are right.
We don't have to persuade them. We were promised a referendum and didn't get it because they failed to persuade us.
We didn't get a referendum because they knew the answer would be NO!
Basically we had our referendum and the answer was NO!!
Their "EU" is now illegitimate.
We are now all in occupied Europe.
They can expect nothing but trouble from us.
Complain about this comment
"(Is it the first in Europe? The world?) "
Sweden's cabinet had 50% women in 1994. Upon the resignation of Sten Heckscher on 5 February 1996 there were 21 members of cabinet of which 11 (= 52%) were women. At the time this was heralded as the first cabinet in the world with a majority of women.
The Finnish cabinet still has the record for most women in cabinet. The current "Council of State" consists of 12 women out of a total of 20 members (= 60%).
Complain about this comment
I doubt if women would be "less egoistic or more consensual" than men. Probably, women are more likely to be able to deal better with conflicts by keeping the "balls in the air" longer than men would. However, in the game being played, you either need to beat "them" or "join them" - and so, women in top positions are likely to emulate (or do better than) the successful men, and in the process, compromise on the feminine virtues they possess. So what do you get? A man wearing a skirt ! A famous economist was once asked "what would you, as an economist, do, if you were the finance minister" to which he accurately replied "If I were the finance minister, I would be a politician and no longer an economist" - meaning to say, people in certain positions will take certain decisions that are highly influenced by the environment in which that positions operates. The actual personality of the decision maker could be of little consequence. We live in a world that understands objectivity - everything is measurable - because everything is convertible (to money). So what you wear (skirts or trousers) is unlikely to make a big difference to your decisions.
Complain about this comment
I am in favor of gender mainstreaming in every aspect of politics, but aren't we missing a point here? It doesn't means that we have to employ every women in EU Comission or Parliament just because she is a woman. Quality of work shouldn't diminish under influence of semi-feminist lobby. Neither should under mens lobby. Eight women in Commission of 27 people shows only that there is something wrong in member states.
Complain about this comment
"EU to seek new pact with Russia "
Nothing they sign "on our behalf" is legitimate because the "EU" has no right to exist because we didn't get the referendum we were promised.
Complain about this comment
To Ravenseft #57,
The machinations may be a bit like that but you should not forget that the commissioners are mostly politicians who have passed their sell-by date in their own countries and since they were an electoral liability their mates put them forward for the commission. This is abject cronyism and nothing to do with democracy, as for that great talking shop, the European parliament, it's pushing a point to suggest that they have true power to reject. If there was a true democracy then it is the elected, by us, parliament who would be at the top and the commission merely their civil servants enacting their wishes. As it is the commission and well paid civil servants who exist in a special Tax/Social regime of unbelievable generosity hold all the cards and can keep on regenerating failed or rejected policies until they are accepted. In case you don't know Brussels, one of the symbols of somebody lucky enough to be a commission worker is a special car number plate which is accompanied by low priced fuel, low tax rates, excellent social and health care, uncontrolled expenses etc which is why some Belgian people I've worked with in Brussels get very upset at the one rule for us and another rule for them.
Finally, since the politicians in the commission are there mostly because of cronyism, and since they were either past it, failed or were rejected in their own countries, who can trust the motives in anything they put forward. This thread is a case in point, the future president should be elected by us, not by a council of ministers, not the EU parliament, and most certainly not the Commission. They can propose candidates, but it is for us to choose the best, regardless of sex, race, country of origin, age etc and if a woman such as Merkel is put forward then if she can merit the job against the other candidates she should get it.
Complain about this comment
@ Buzet23, #65
As per my post in #57, you need to look at the reality of the situation and beyond the Daily Mail hyperbole. Most of the Commissioners were high-flying politicians in their own Member States.
Barroso, ex-Portuguese PM; Kallas, ex-President of the Bank of Estonia; Frattini, ex-Italian Foreign Minister; Borg, ex-Maltese Foreign Minister; Michel, ex-Belgian Foreign Minister; Kovacs, ex-Hungarian Foreign Minister; Kroes, ex-Dutch Transport Minister; Boel, ex-Danish Agriculture Minister; McCreevy, ex-Irish Finance Minister.
And so on, until we reach Mandelson who has never had any post of real importance, and was appointed as a friend of Blair, just as Patten was a friend of Major. The others are there on merit.
The Commission is certainly not at the top of the hierarchy, and acts on the command of the Council. The 15,000 civil servants (far less than the 503,000 working in the UK) earn alot less following the Kinnock reforms and the "CD" car number plate is only available to top diplomats, i.e. Commissioners.
I agree with you that the President should be directly elected, and that the Parliament should have more powers to veto Commission members. The Lisbon Treaty goes some way towards that by giving the Parliament powers over the budget and more policy areas.
Complain about this comment
¤62 neuroblogr: why do "you have to beat them"? That's the way the USA has tried to run the world for the past 50 years or so: and it has failed.
What "consensual" means is to achieve an outcome that most of the parties involved can accept. It's known in Industrial Relations as getting to a "win-win". Sadly, I know, too many UK and US business leaders can't (won't?) even try to understand this. Some (and I mean a few) politicians do understand, and have made it work.
John Major (Yes, the hate-figure of the right) and Tony Blair managed to bring the IRA into a sensible debate. Zapatero tried, and failed, with ETA (but that was their fault, not his).
I find Sarkozy's willingness to sit down and talk to the trade unions preferable to Margaret Thatcher's view that the country could afford (and like?) head-on and bloody confrontation.
Complain about this comment
To Revenseft #66,
I'm not referring to the CD plates but rather than the special EU status Belgian plates that can be taken by EU employees, they look similar to Belgian but have a different colour lettering. The real difference though is in their privileged status as I mentioned before.
As far as my comments on the commissioners goes, I don't read the Daily Mail as I live in Belgium and not the UK, my sources are a cross section of the news sources available on the internet so I pick up a lot of contradictory comments as regards the relative merits of these politicians. As regards Louis Michel who was a Belgian MR (Liberal) Minister for many years from Wallonie, I recall he was in political difficulties here before his appointment but I forget exactly what it was, but he was 'promoted' since he was an electoral liability. Certainly some of the other names you've mentioned also have had their fair share of internal criticism. What gets me about the 'high flyers' is that they get their commission jobs after they have run out of time in their own countries. When you consider that, like with Gordon Brown, the brown stuff takes some time to hit the fan, it's no surprise they they get 'promoted' to the commission by their friends when that happens.
Ps. I didn't like Patten getting that job any more than Mandelson or Kinnock and I hardly think Kinnock was a high flyer.
Complain about this comment
@ Buzet23, #68
I've never seen the special plates to which you refer, but I am aware that a secretary starting his/her career in the institutions will earn little more than the minimum wage.
As to Michel, an internet search shows that he was Belgian Deputy PM until 2004, and that there's a good chance he will be back in government when his term as Commissioner ends next year. That doesn't sound like a has-been to me. Take also the case of Ferrero-Waldner who ran to be President of Austria in 2004, and Romano Prodi who became (briefly) Italian PM.
Perhaps it might have been true in the past that finished politicians were sent to Brussels, but I think that's changed now with the importance of having a capable person in a position where he/she can influence matters for the country. With the reduction in the number of Commissioners to one per country, it will become ever more necessary to send the best person for the job. The days of the likes of Kinnock, Patten, Mandelson, Brittan and Soames are numbered.
Complain about this comment
Ravenseft, you could also add Pascal Lamy who was a quasi-unknown in France until sent to manage the post of Trade commissioner. He is now heading the World Trade Organization and a very known and respected figure world-wide
He's the perfect counter-example of Buzet's claims (and others) that you get only has-been at the Commission. His career actually started when he left the national scene ...
The same could be said of Javier Solana.
It's really a shame that UK governments cling to a policy of placating low-key politicians into EU jobs. It both deserves UK and EU interests.
Complain about this comment
To Ravensoft #69,
The plates are there but much less so than before as they identified EU Commission employees and that meant their cars were at risk, which is maybe why you've not seen them. As for Louis Michel returning I think that is highly unlikely, it's more likely his son will be preferred to him when the current MR leader Didier Reynders gets pushed as he is as disliked as Gordon Brown at the moment. We should also remember that after the middle of July it is by no means sure that Belgium will still exist as that is the date the party of PM LeTerme set him to resolve the impasse between North and South Belgium.
To Starbuck11 #70,
If only your comment was the rule, I would much prefer the unknowns, quasi or not, to the majority of has beens that we have now as at least they are not so tainted by scandals, corruption etc etc. If Commissioners were appointed due to their true professional managerial ability rather than being just aging professional politicians whose mistakes have never been truly accepted due to their conviction politics then maybe they might be respected a bit more throughout the EU.
Complain about this comment
65. Buzet23 wrote:
" one of the symbols of somebody lucky enough to be a commission worker is a special car number plate which is accompanied by low priced fuel, low tax rates, excellent social and health care, uncontrolled expenses etc "
The number plate is a Belgian State con-trick. It costs twice as much as a normal plate and confers no advantage. It is a stupid snobbism that Belgian staff tend to like - it's oneupmanship over their neighbours. Non-Belgian staff often avoid them because they attract the attention of speed cops, parking attendants and vandals. There is no low-priced fuel.
Low tax-rates ... agreed. Social and health care IS separate - because Belgium's NHS equivalent won't accept them. Staff have to pay their medical bills up front and then wait for reimbursement. Uncontrolled expenses - untrue. They're very, very closely monitored e.g. producing boarding cards to prove that business flights have really been taken.
You really shouldn't repeat malicious rumours without checking your facts.
Complain about this comment
To *67 (frenchderek)
What I meant by "beat them or join them" was about the musical chairs in any organisation. "How do I keep my chair or get a better one" is the constant undercurrent in everyone's mind. This leads people to take certain positions, make statements and ultimately decisions. This undercurrent makes no distinction between men and women. Both are subject to similar pressures. Both are judged by the same environment - the backers and critics at home and abroad. In a way, every organisation behaves like the free market, and every individual commands a certain respect / price. Market manipulators can only succeed in the short term and their mechanizations will soon surface. This holds for offices as well. Concluding on a bit of humorous exaggeration, I dont know if a "female tomato" would do different or better in the free market of tomatoes. So why would it be different for humans?
Complain about this comment
64. At 11:46 am on 26 May 2008, SuffolkBoy2 wrote:
"EU to seek new pact with Russia "
Nothing they sign "on our behalf" is legitimate because the "EU" has no right to exist because we didn't get the referendum we were promised.
----
Deary me. Let's extrapolate shall we?
Would the monarchy, Formula one, Canada, speeding fines and the moon have no right to exist simply because a politician was attempting to garner votes?
Complain about this comment
To Greypolyglot #72
It maybe some things have changed in the last four years since I finished working next to a couple of EU buildings in Etterbeek but at that time there were certainly fuel discounts from what colleagues who had friends in the EU told me. As for Social care, the pay up front is the standard Belgian system and the mutuality reimburses a week or two later, a friend of mine was in the EU system and needed medical care and it was significantly more advantageous than the standard Belgian system. As for expenses, I'm sure you've come across the old joke about when four EU employees go for a business meal they ask for four copies of the total bill, joke or truth, I've certainly seen the multiple receipt trick some years ago, but maybe they've tightened up the controls now and pigs other than Pink Floyd's can fly. Certainly whilst Kinnock was in charge of the anti corruption department the only thing he did was to fire a whistle blower in his department, maybe his replacement is doing better and cracking down on abuse?
One fact is that EU Commission permanent employees are effectively part of a country within a country that has it's own very attractive Financial and Social regime for it's employees. I also recall that this 'country' status affected domicile and residency in some way, which is probably why the Belgian Social system can't accept them. Whether this holds true for Strasbourg or Luxembourg I don't know as I've no experience of the institutions in those areas.
Complain about this comment
I dont care if everyone in the top jobs is male or female, but I am just as opposed to "positive discrimination" as I am to "Negative discrimination". If the female candidates are not up to scratch then they should not be allowed to drive the continent into the gutter for the sake of equality. I suspect that initially at least there must be more males in the EU heirarchy simply because there is, at this moment, better male candidates than female ones, over time of course this will change but it does nothing for the female cause if poor female candidates are placed in positions out of their depth damaging the genuine case for equality.
Complain about this comment
Buzet,
The social and financial regime applies to all civil servants of the EU. I can vouchsafe that. I don't begrudge then their fortune though ;)
On the other hand, if they buy a car (vat free) then sell that car, they have to pay the VAT. If they have an operation, they pay the totality then are reimbursed. There are lots of rules and regulation which, while being a bonus, are a pain in the backside
Complain about this comment
Hi G-in-Belgium,
Neither do I begrudge them their benefits as across all business there were always plus and minus points regarding public versus private, and you're right about the 'all' bit as there are more 'companies' within the EU sector than just the commission. What surprises me these days is that there are so many denying it exists. Financial control and accountability in the private sector has become pretty strict apart from for the detestable 'fat cats', but that doesn't seem to have passed into the public sectors, whether EU or state which is what upsets so many ordinary people these days.
The VAT bit for cars from what you say sounds like the old VAT free importation/exportation system, the trick then was to keep the car for a year or so and the VAT for a used car was substantially less and negotiable (in theory). As for an operation the question is, as always, what percentage is reimbursed, in the normal Belgian system it depends on a lot of factors but is often between 60% and 70%.
Anyway, thanks for your fair comments and good luck with the ever increasing (everywhere) rules and regulations.
Complain about this comment
@ Ravenseft (66)
but none of the politburo (commission) members you mention were actually elected. They have legislative powers but are not elected, also there is no parliamentary control on the politburo (commission). That doesn't bother you at all?
Complain about this comment
@ Ravenseft (57)
you conveniently ignored my argument that there is no popular mandate to create a supreme layer of government on top of the national governments.
The point being is, we have gone from a system where peoples elect a government and a parliament, and those make the laws, to a system where said government and parliament abdicate their responsibility (without a mandate to do so) and create a new layer of government on top of themselves on which the voters really have no influence worth mentioning. How do we the peoples dismiss this supreme government of Europe that is the politburo/commission and their council friends.
Also you make some claims which are patently false.
1) most government ministers were not elected, but appointed (therefore a system in which they in turn appoint the members of the EU's supreme government, is by definition not democratic). Only in Britain and a few other countries do government ministers have to be elected as MPs
2) anyone, including civil servants, who works for the EU and earns the same pay similar jobs get in the member states, is much better off because of the absence of income tax
3) the EU parliament has no legislative prerogative and as such does not function as a real parliament, its an advisory council at best
As for your "businesses and citizens to have their say through the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions" argument. Well I'm sorry, thats no subsitute for direct democracy. You failed, please amuse me by trying again. I don't like the way you belittle those who dare question the 'project' (ie EU). There are some like me who know that almost everyone would be better off without the EU. Only one group would be noticably worse off: politicians and their bureaucrat hangers-on (usually university educated 'progressive' types who think they know whats best for the peoples).
And the most important argument, I shall repeat: at no point in time did any peoples ever authorize the creation of this new layer of supreme government called EU. All that it was supposed to be was economic cooperation on a voluntary basis. Oh and by the way, politicians who work for the EU pay no income tax (gravy train, the #1 reason mainstream politicians love the EU and also the #1 reason why Croatian, Serbian -etc...- politicians want to get in. I mean who wouldn't love the power to make laws without the need of being elected and without any meaningful parliamentary oversight? Much better that the elite decide these matters between themselves, right?
And why not a true federation? At least we the peoples would get to decide who the executive was. But don't count on the current politicial elite supporting that, the peoples might elect someone from outside their circles, can't have that now can we?
Complain about this comment
75. Buzet23 wrote:
"It may be some things have changed ...but at that time there were certainly fuel discounts". There is no tax-free fuel for all Eurocrats. Commissioners (who have diplomatic status) and some (few) staff can use their own cars in place of official cars or taxis for official travel. Vouchers are used to obtain fuel for such "official" travel.
"standard Belgian system ... reimburses a week or two later". Eurocrats' system is about 3 or 4 times slower.
If "four EU employees go for a business meal they ask for four copies of the total bill". And the restaurant complies leaving itself short of income for its VAT returns? I think not! Anyway, business meals would normally be charged directly to the institution - rarely to the individual.
"EU Commission permanent employees are effectively part of a country within a country". True, but the staff didn't devise the system. The governments of the original six Member States did.
Facts, Buzet23, facts!
Complain about this comment
"Petit Ring" doesn't really work as the European Quarter is outside the ring. I prefer Schumann village (as in Westminster village) since the institutions cluster around Rond-point Schumann.
Complain about this comment
#81,
re TVA returns, a 'souche TVA' is not the detailed bill, therefore there is no imbalance between the till and receipts. The 'souche TVA' can be automated from the till but it can also be a simple pad and that is where the multiple receipts used to come from. It's true though that the TVA people tightened the rules up some years ago but whether uncontrollable pad receipts are still used and accepted by the EU I can't say but this trick is a fact Greypolyglot, as I've seen drawers of filled in receipts in various restaurants a few years back and 'business' customers invited to pick the one they want. Furthermore, in the past business people entertaining regularly had a company credit card, others did not and paid themselves and were reimbursed later, I've never met any restaurant owner that is happy to wait several months for a finance department to pay up, even the card companies delays are an annoyance especially in these hard times for the Horeca sector. So unless the EU has a special deal with certain restaurants the charge it to the company bit is very unlikely to be accepted, especially if they very slow.
Re Fuel, I did say discounts and not 'tax free', maybe the rules have changed but are they being observed and not bent, only those doing the bending can confirm that as there can be a big difference to what is written and what actually happens as we all know.
Re ("EU Commission permanent employees are effectively part of a country within a country". True, but the staff didn't devise the system. The governments of the original six Member States did. Facts, Buzet23, facts!) It really doesn't matter who created the special domicile, it exists now and is a big advantage to all who can enjoy it, fact my friend.
Complain about this comment
83. Buzet23:
You have a suspiciously detailed knowledge of how to commit "restaurant fraud"! Anyway, the sort of receipt to which you refer is not acceptable. And, yes, various restaurants do indeed have a routine "official entertainment" arrangement. Business credit cards simply ensure that the restaurant gets paid. Failure to adequately justify the expenditure would just lead to its deduction from next salary.
Re Fuel, please tell us all where to go for "discounted fuel". I'm sure that my contacts would love to know.
I have yet to meet a local (Belgian) EU official who would consider living and working abroad even if they were offered the "big advantage" of the "special domicile". There are many disadvantages for which the salary only partly compensates - cultural isolation, difficulties in respect of children's education and spouse's employment possibilities among others.
Complain about this comment
There is only one way to ensure that women get an equal role with men at the very top of public service and that is to make it obligatory.
Generations boom and decline as birth rates rise and fall. ethnic proportions alter with migration and variable birth rates and faiths and ideologies groups fluctuate in members and support, but the division of the population into close-to-exactly half-and-half male and female is natural, unique and permanent and should be recognised as such in the electoral system..
In every election for representatives of the people -MEPs, MPs, Councillors etc.- and no matter what electoral system is used, every elector should have two votes. There should be an election of men candidates and an election of women candidates. All elected persons would thus continue to be responsible for and to the entire community but there would always be half men and half women on every elected body.
Complain about this comment
#84,
re the restaurants I simply observe a lot of what goes on around me, and I was often in restaurants up to four years ago when my last IT contract ended. After that I ran a Tavern for 16 months and whilst I could not serve anything other that 'petite restauration' as I don't have access to the profession, many of my customers were waiters etc during those months. If there is still fraud going on simply watch what happens when people pay, it's usually pretty obvious if there's a fiddle going on.
The reason why the 'special domicile' is not so interesting now is mainly because the EU by stealth is seeking to limit social mobility. They have made (un)employment law especially restrictive and one very nasty trick concerns the changing of domiciles. If as an unemployed person in Belgium you take up an employment, say in France, are made unemployed and want to return to Belgium you meet a quagmire of problems, and the suggestion is to remain living, unemployed, in France under their system. This is fact as a friend has hit this and whist some of the rules are Belgian, they originate mostly from EU directives. Even such minor things as renewing a UK driving licence requires you to be a resident, yet technically you are not obliged to hand in your old licence when changing domicile. Conclusion, I can understand your last comment as an EU employee is in a great position to see what is happening regarding domicile.
Complain about this comment
Who's going to be bothered by shenanigans of unelected members of Brussels Polibureau if there are much more important issues to discuss: such as whether Eurovision songs should be sang in English or Flemish, or whether a president of EU should be male, female or transgender?
[comrades Hujintao and Putin are laughing their hearts out]
Complain about this comment
"Male or female, as long as they're competent..."
That is of course common sense.
"Spain's new cabinet is unusual in having more women than men."
They should be congratulated, as should the Welsh assembly.
If the Lisbon treaty is accepted, prepare to say goodbye to all this progress. The disproportionate Minuscule Minority will be in power again.
Say no to Centralised Europe.
Complain about this comment
Hillary Rodent Clinton is now available and she'll gladly take citizenship of any EU country to become elligible for an office of a president. Any president. Of anything.
So, how about it?
Complain about this comment
R 89
No, thank you, you will have to keep for yourselves the latest Iraq war victim: Mrs Clinton.
European polls show an overwhelming support for Mr Obama, don't pretend you weren't aware!
So you can preserve Hillary beside Bush, Blair and Aznar statues in your museum of horrors.
Complain about this comment
Re #90
So you mean Mr. Obama is going to become an EU president?
Complain about this comment
Obama will be a European president only metaphorically, since he's willing to rebuild the transatlantic bridge with two lanes for each sense. Even Daily Mail readers want him to win!
His joy for the future is contagious, Neocons included. Whatch Condi's brood smile when she was asked over Obama's triumph. She appeared happier than ever while answering "US is an extraordinary country".
So congratulations. I'm sure Obama has conquered the hardest hearts.
Complain about this comment
"We'll remember in November" :-)))
P.S. Learn what a term 'neocon' means.
A hint: Its usually used by socialist CONS to describe bona fide conservatives.
Complain about this comment
NeoCons or PaleoCons, never mind: Cons.
New Europe or Old Europe, never mind again: Europe.
Complain about this comment
Not really.
There's a huge chasm between Old Europe and New Europe for eveyone to see; not only in the realm of polictics and national security (which is obvious) but even in the realm of religion and ethics.
And if you believe is does not exist you've been conned.
----------------------------------------------------------
A SUCKER IS BORN EVERY MINUTE!
(P.T. Barnaum)
Complain about this comment
There's the Old World and the New World.
Anything else only exists in Rumsfeld's head (Where is he by the way?).
"You shall respect your Father". The Bible.
Enjoy your New Albanias!
Complain about this comment
Thanks. And you enjoy your much closer friends in Algeria, where bombs explode almost daily because of "unjust and illegal war in Iraq". ;-)
BTW where is you respect for Rumsfeld?
After all he could have been your father.
Not to mention that his family hails from Old Europe (Germany)? :-)))
P.S. I wonder how Old Europeans who speak derogatorily about countries covering other half of European continent can even dream about United Europe.
Complain about this comment
What do you mean, that all Americans -except few Sioux in reserves- are essentially from the Old World, like Rumsfeld or Rice?
I didn't expect such a humble statement coming from you. You're right, Americans are the sons of those along the centuries who left Europe because..., let's say, they needed it, bringing along the slaves to tame the promised land.
Those people who could afford it stayed in the Old Continent.
As to Algeria, do you ignore the 200.000 victims in the 90'? Nothing happening now comes as big news.
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately "reserves" pertain only to wines, and reservations do not exist.
And if you studied history of American continent you'd know that so called 'Native Americans' (plenty of them still around judging by both, common observation and US Census results) are also immigrants, in a large part from North Eastern Siberia.
[DNA analysis can be pretty merciless]
Those who were not afraid of new challenges and broad horizons left.
Those who were afraid of new things and challenges of the New World stayed.
And had to wait 12 000 years (till October 1917) for a system of social justice to be finally established in their native lands.
[Those who stayed in Old Europe had to wait for a smiliar system much longer: untill European superste has been established]
BTW. I only mentioned Algeria because you yourself have stated you felt much more affinity for and have more in common with North Africans than with East/Central Europeans.
Well, try and bring them into EU; I, for one, won't exactly cry when that happens.
Incidentally, it's happening already.
P.S. Out of politness I won't mention what Spanish conquistadors brought to New World and what they took out of it.
Let alone how they civilized the 'locals'.
I'm sure you'll appreciate my tact.
Complain about this comment
Don't mislead my words: I've never said to bring Maghreb into the EU, but co-operate with them as a wise way to stop mass immigration. The same should do East Europeans with "Far East Europeans". That's all.
I'm not going to justify Conquistadores excesses. But the truth nowadays is that from Rio Grande (or San Francisco, if you want) to Tierra del Fuego people assume "European Spanish" culture as their own, with pride and keeping Spanish language against the official "English only". I saw it from first hand: they know more of our "common" culture than myself.
Indians from Guatemala or blacks from Dominican Republic call themselves "Latinos" or "Hispanics", although they have not any DNA link with the Roman Empire nor with the Iberian Peninsula.
I cannot imagine a "North eastern Siberian" Native American or a Black from Louisiana calling themselves "Anglosaxons" or "Anglos".
This nominal question tells a lot of different approach to colonisation.
As a matter of politeness, I am not going to compare the mood between blacks in Jamaica or Bronx, to that of blacks from Cuba, Dominican or Colombia. Just try yourself.
Complain about this comment
Wrong again.
1.English is not an official language of the United States. As matter of fact US does not a have an "official language". Sorry.
2. Recent DNA studies have demonstrated that their are hardly any 'native' genes in a genetic pool of so called indigenous population of South America. Unfortunately.
3. I have yet to meet an American of a Anglo, Saxon or Nordic descent who would describe himself/herself as an "Anglo-Saxon". Most of us call ourselves simply 'Americans'. Just like most black, brown yellow and even pink US citizens.
However, I have yet to meet an EU citizen who would describe himself/herself as a "European", rather than German, French, Dutch, Irish, etc. I'm even beginning to hear Belgians describe themselves as Wallons or Flamands just as many Basks and Catalonians have been doing for donkeys years.
[BTW. I've never met anybody who'd say "Im a Yugoslav" or a "Soviet". And that after many decades of pretty thorough brainwashing.]
And I guess that's EU superstate enthusiasts' major problem.
I didn't create it so don't blame me for it.
Complain about this comment
I challenge you to account how many times you find the toponim Europe or Europeans in the international press. Don't try, you won't have enough life time to reach the astronomic number.
Europe's name comes from the ancient Greek and I don't know why you persist to compare to Soviet, that hardly nobody knows what it means and, in any case, is a dead notion.
Of course we call ourselves Catalans (not Catalonians), Flamands or Londoners inside our common house. But worldwide everybody has at least the slightest idea what Europe, or European, means.
And despite 2.500 years of wars, cainist violence, invasions ... a new generation of Europeans is emerging:
I'm Catalan Spanish, my partner is German, we live in London and my best friend is a Flamand living in Barcelona. Never nationality is an issue of fight among us.
Moreover, most of the times we are not aware of each "national difference". Our differences are based on individual personalities.
And my case represents the growing reality in this continent. I'm not a "rara avis", granted.
If Europe weren't exist, I wouldn't understand why we are here in this blog.
Complain about this comment
One more thing: I congratulate myself US citizens no matter of what color or tendency call themselves Americans, North Americans, or whatever name is the most appropiate.
But be careful. Yesterday wrote here a Californian who wanted to get rid of Texas. And in my first trip to US, my Newyorker friends reccomended me to fly straight away from NY to SF or LA, instead of stopping over in the middle as I had planned. Keeping being polite, I won't mention anything about New Orleans.
We say in Spanish: everywhere you will find beans boiling.
Complain about this comment
"Moreover, most of the times we are not aware of each "national difference"."
It doesn't have anything to do with being European; everything to do with being cosmopolitan.
I appreciate your Euro enthusiasm but facts on the ground do not support your claim that old nationalisms are waning.
On the contrary.
It doesn't take even more than a silly soccer match to see not only nationalisms, but chauvinisms raising their ugly heads.
[cf. video of German soccer fans in Klagenfurt -during Euro 2008) screaming Nazi slogans ( 'Sieg Heil' was one of the mildest ones) at the Poles.]
You personally may not display such a mentality, but there are plenty of 'Europeans' who do.
P.S. I've mentioned Soviet Union (which, incidentally means simply Union of Councils) and Yugoslavia, to point out that multinational states don't last.
Just like 'India' separated into India, Pakistani, Burmese and Bangla parts the moment accumulated steam blew the lid of the pressure cooker off.
And I see (perhaps because of a distance) a lot of steam accumulating at the bottom of European pressure cooker.
Complain about this comment
Well, it's a matter of taking the anecdote as the whole reality.
From your distance, you may see Germans like this bunch of bigot neonazis in Kagenfurt. I shouldn't reply my view of Germany, a country I visit very often, is diametrically opposed.
We all know what sells in the media.
If you want to take the harmless steam as an explosion is up to you at the end of the day.
Complain about this comment
105 ?
I might have writen any "inappropiate" word. Never mind.
Anyway, it wasn't against anyone or any nation.
Complain about this comment
it is good the more women get top jobs at the european union....
Complain about this comment
Re#105
Don't want to argue.
But just out of curiosity...
How you and your partner explain growing ranks and influence of former (?) Communists (PDS and other Links) and neoNazis in Bundestag and in German politics generally?
Is it because of opressive/unjust policies of CDU/CSU/FDP?
Or perhaps some other factors are involved?
Complain about this comment
I am glad that more women are getting top jobs in the European Union....
--Dennis Junior--
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS