EU constitution

[ComradeDavo]

First of all, I have to dash off now, but human decency compels me, after my bad behaviour to write these lines. So excuse me if it is a bit uncoherent, but my wife is already standing and breathing down my neck...
I apologize for being a bit harsh, it is just that I am a bit sensitive on this, since I have been struggling for more than ten years to give my contribution to keep my country out of the European Union. I see your point also, and that your country is in another situation than mine, but still I think that this constitution is another step in the wrong direction.
I also humbly apologize for my rather rude remark on your history knowledge, congrats with your achievement, but before you gave me any context your remark seemed wild, especially for someone who took a master degree in mainly social and labour history.
I would like to see a constitution modelled to a great extent upon the Scandinavian welfare model, with extensive social rights connected to citizenship and neutrality towards applicable economical systems, so that a change towards right as well as left would be possible if the people wanted that in democratic elections. I would also like less federalism.I would like a system were the parlament decided, rather than the Commision and the Central Bank.In short, less power to bussiness, more to the people and theirthe democratic institutions.And less militarism, please.
About the neoliberalism part I think I gave the best arguments in my reply to TLC, in a nutshell the favorism of capital over labour and democracy. The way I see it, the aim of the constitution is to solidify the political ties that have made it easier for transnational corporations to control European economic affairs. I can also assure you that it is not only reactionaries that objects to this, recently GTC, the largest trade union in France, urged its membership to oppose the constitution.Also in Norway, most labour organizations plays a big role in the opposition to EU.
A bit also about federalism.While EU resembles USSR in imposing one economical system in its constitution, it resembles USA if you consider Brussel and its likeness to Washington DC. I think here about lobbyism.
If I remember correctly, apart from being EU's bureaucratical main site, Brussel is also the home of about 30 000 professional lobbyists working full-time, about 70% percent of them for corporations.Now federalism has as a consequence that in signing up, you have to agree on whatever is agreed by your counterparts. Consider this then: A transnational corporation can for instance lobby a Spanish or Italian representative and this will hurt working people in for instance France. This is why I say that federalism is great for neoliberalistic economics and its spread beyond national boundaries.
Individual countries are, indeed, increasingly powerless to control the course of their economies. I think I have read somewhere (unfortunately I don't have the reference at hand)that at least half of European legislation (depending on the country) begins in Brussels and not in their home capitals. This loss of sovereignty is sometimes a good thing, i.e in connection to racism, discrimination and war, but the creation of an economic superstructure does not help combat these problems. In fact, neoliberal economics has resulted in very little being done to open borders to trade, while quite a bit has been done in paving the way for single corporations to merely spread their influence across borders. This is not trade: just expansion, plain and simple.
You might as well say that predominance of foreign firms in European countries has been fuelling many right-wing extremistic movements.
With this I mean that the current "nationalists" are being faced with a continually consolidating oligopoly that is destroying their local sovereignty.Together with social problems that is not likely to be solved by imposing this constitution, like unemployment,they will not be lacking in public appeal.
But now I really got to leave...

Thanks for the reply, made very intresting reading I think you have many valid points, and I can see that the issue is very important to you as of course any EU descions have implications for Norway also. Aplogies that I did not explain myself properly originally!

I would like the constitution to be more like the Skandinavian model you mention, however I do not think that would be possiable without first accepting this treaty. I personally would one day like a United Europe, so worries over federalism don't bother me. I think what Winner said 'Future of EU is at stake and therefore I'll vote for it, even if I don't like it very much' can alos be applied to me, in that whilst I might share your concerns about corparations etc I think that the situation can only get better for us in the EU if we first accept this constitution, then work together in Europe to move towards the left.

I suppose to me the constitution is a compromise with those more econmically liberal to ensure the conservatives and nationalist parties will never be able to dismantle the wealfare state.

Also, I think that the constitution will help the EU be more transparant so that people will see and understand more the kind of 'lobbying' you describe and that this way governments will be pressured more to ensure that it is the people's intrests and not the companies intrests that are put at the forefront.

 

[Winner]

Posting in non-English languages without translations in English-language fora is widely considered a breach of netiquette. It would be appreciated if translations were provided, or if private discussions were conducted via PM.

I plan to make a rough translation, but as you surely know, time is valuable

EDIT: Done.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Regarding neo-liberalism, well, to me wanting to get rid of national monopolies in energy, transportation, etc, doesn't make you a neo-liberal. If you want to call neo-liberal the policies of parties that I consider left-of-centre, fine, but it's sure confusing..

Well, from my perspective your reasoning is confusing. If you by left-of-centre parties means so-called social-democrats, then I think you are just playing with words instead of relating to real political ideologies. Neoliberalism has had an heavy influence on politics generally since the 80's, and in many countries, including your own, those parties have tilted quite far to the right. Just check out the political rethorics used by those socialdemocrats.Surely you don't consider "personliga" Persson to be radical? Come on, you know better! And what about Schröder, Belka, Stoltenberg, Blair??? i would surely call all of them neo-liberals.
"National monopolies" is also quite tendentious. I prefer to say owned by the public because in most cases we are talking about natural monopolies, and I also find it best that those important functions and ressources in society is under democratic control.
My point ws otherwise ,and I think this was an important reason for those "social-democrats" to support the EU, that politicians in such a system is relieved of responsibility for unpopular changes. Those who belong to those parties and want them back again on a more radical course will be rendered powerless in a system where capitalism is constitutional.
I also think it is more fertile to think class rather than party when relating to such political issues.

Considering the actual constitutional treaty, I think it regulates too much. It should neither rule out nationalized industries nor mandate welfare states, Scandinavian-style or otherwise.

As far as I can see, I expressed something similar.But my point about the welfare state was rather that a democracy can only function if economical inequalities are not too great and in the present situation in Europe I think a strong welfare state is needed to combat poverty and unemployment.Since a welfare state can be either capitalistic or socialistic, I think it would be a good pragmatic solution where the future development would be left to decide by the people and their representatives rather than the corporations.

I don't understand the reasoning behind opposing the treaty because it's too hard to change. The current treaties already need unanimity to change. Sure, one could wish for a more flexible system, but if the treaty is rejected we're stuck with essentially the same amount of rigidity as it would give us.

I agree that the present situation is also unsatisfactory,but ratifying them hardly makes it better. It is possible to draft a constitution based on other, more democratic principles. I can't see why that should be completely impossible to achieve if EU is only half as democratic as it claims to be.

 

[Winner]

I knew this. I will must try it in English
1)This is right now, but next day it may be different. And in the future we may give might to computer, which is quicker and better than people? Its a little personification, but how we may be sure???

I think you should return to real world. EU employs about 70,000 officers, czech government about 300,000. So who is ineffective here?

3)No, I disagree. When we will be not EU member, EU will hasnt legal options to cause.
These 55 percents are pretty small to vote and I only would hope to solidarity of careful ministers. But I must reply I am not againist EU, only againist Federation.

Nechápu
Federation is the only logical step. We already have practically everything like one state-like entity. Now, we need head to operate the body. I mean federal government. Constitution is only minor step towards this goal.

4)Europe isnt uniform, so foreign minster may only lie about it. I dont understand how he will help.

It is simple - he will act when the member states will unanimously agree on something. It is far more effective and it shows the world that it deals with EU, not with Germany, FRance, Italy, Poland, Czech republic, Belgium seperately.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Thanks for the reply, made very intresting reading I think you have many valid points, and I can see that the issue is very important to you as of course any EU descions have implications for Norway also. Aplogies that I did not explain myself properly originally!

I would like the constitution to be more like the Skandinavian model you mention, however I do not think that would be possiable without first accepting this treaty. I personally would one day like a United Europe, so worries over federalism don't bother me. I think what Winner said 'Future of EU is at stake and therefore I'll vote for it, even if I don't like it very much' can alos be applied to me, in that whilst I might share your concerns about corparations etc I think that the situation can only get better for us in the EU if we first accept this constitution, then work together in Europe to move towards the left.

I suppose to me the constitution is a compromise with those more econmically liberal to ensure the conservatives and nationalist parties will never be able to dismantle the wealfare state.

Also, I think that the constitution will help the EU be more transparant so that people will see and understand more the kind of 'lobbying' you describe and that this way governments will be pressured more to ensure that it is the people's intrests and not the companies intrests that are put at the forefront.

Very good post, and I am glad that we sorted out this little misunderstanding!
I very well understand your position and your arguments are quite good and as I said you are in good company - I recommend reading George Monbiot, I don't remember the title of his new book, but his articles can be found online and at least in that most excellent newspaper Weekly Guardian.
I also would like a United Europe, but on completely different premises. In the present situation I think that the national state is a better guarantee for democracy and justice.This does not means that states should not cooperate of course, rather the opposite.
I can only hope that you are right about the development in EU, but what I fear is that this is like a chessgame where the left is playing without the queen.
In any case it is very difficult to know what the future will bring and with people like you working for the good case we should be in with a good chance...

 

[Winner]

May I?

And what about Schröder, Belka, Stoltenberg, Blair??? i would surely call all of them neo-liberals.

That's joke, isn't it? Schröder is socialist and Belka? Slightly centrist socialist.

I should acquaint you with our main opposition party. You would probably call them anarchocapitalists

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well, from my perspective your reasoning is confusing. If you by left-of-centre parties means so-called social-democrats, then I think you are just playing with words instead of relating to real political ideologies.

Well, clearly our poltical vocabularies are fairly different ...

Neoliberalism has had an heavy influence on politics generally since the 80's, and in many countries, including your own, those parties have tilted quite far to the right. Just check out the political rethorics used by those socialdemocrats.Surely you don't consider "personliga" Persson to be radical?

I don't consider Persson a radical. It follows I do not consider him a neo-liberal either, since I consider neo-liberals to be radicals.

Come on, you know better! And what about Schröder, Belka, Stoltenberg, Blair??? i would surely call all of them neo-liberals.

I'm not familiar with Belka and Stoltenberg's policies, but Schröder and Blair certainly aren't neo-liberals in my book.

"National monopolies" is also quite tendentious. I prefer to say owned by the public because in most cases we are talking about natural monopolies, and I also find it best that those important functions and ressources in society is under democratic control.

A monopoly is a monopoly, and if it's owned by the state it's a national monopoly. The terms rolls rather more easily off my tongue than does "monopoly owned by the public", so I'm afraid I'm going to continue to use it.

My point ws otherwise ,and I think this was an important reason for those "social-democrats" to support the EU, that politicians in such a system is relieved of responsibility for unpopular changes. Those who belong to those parties and want them back again on a more radical course will be rendered powerless in a system where capitalism is constitutional.

I basically agree, which is part of why I think economic policies shouldn't be enshrined in a constitution.

I get the impression you're using "radical" to mean leftist, tho. Those primarily in risk of getting screwed here are those in favour of traditional social democracy; the people I'd consider the least radical segment of Sweden's electorate.

I also think it is more fertile to think class rather than party when relating to such political issues.

Class is a tolerable predictor of party preferences and economic beliefs, but I honestly do not see the relevance here.

I agree that the present situation is also unsatisfactory,but ratifying them hardly makes it better. It is possible to draft a constitution based on other, more democratic principles. I can't see why that should be completely impossible to achieve if EU is only half as democratic as it claims to be.

It's effectively impossible since Europe's national electorates clearly won't elect representatives that would swallow that.

Back to terminology, my use of "neo-liberal" is basically taken from the Swedish press, where the word is used basically in two ways:

i) For the economic far right, who'd scrap the welfare state (roughly analoguous to American Libertarians, if usually less extreme).
ii) As an insult for anyone to the right of the one using the term.

Clearly, (ii) has no place in reasoned discourse. I think you'll agree that Persson, Blair and Schröder aren't neo-liberals in the sense of (i), and that that is a quite radical position.

 

[Winner]

Yes!

A clear majority of Spaniards have voted in favour of the European Union constitution in a referendum.

With nine out of 10 votes counted, officials figures showed 77% of voters backed the charter.

Turnout was only about 42% - an embarrassingly low figure for the government, a BBC correspondent says.

Source: BBC

 

[Richard Cribb]

Well, clearly our poltical vocabularies are fairly different .

I am afraid so.

I don't consider Persson a radical. It follows I do not consider him a neo-liberal either, since I consider neo-liberals to be radicals..

I just use it in the traditional rather than the formal sense.

I'm not familiar with Belka and Stoltenberg's policies, but Schröder and Blair certainly aren't neo-liberals in my book.

In my book they are clearly inspired by neo-liberal thinking, see also below.

A monopoly is a monopoly, and if it's owned by the state it's a national monopoly. The terms rolls rather more easily off my tongue than does "monopoly owned by the public", so I'm afraid I'm going to continue to use it..

I would like to elaborate on that but it is getting late. Except that there is a difference between public and state, I think it in fact makes little sense on other levels than the rethoric to use monopoly on certain sectors and functions of society. In current political orthodoxy monopoly is always associated with something negative.

I

I get the impression you're using "radical" to mean leftist, tho. Those primarily in risk of getting screwed here are those in favour of traditional social democracy; the people I'd consider the least radical segment of Sweden's electorate..

Yes I do, for clarity's sake. Apart from that I consider it pretty radical to just defend the Scandinavian model today, and then I mean really defending it, not only paying lip-service.

I

Class is a tolerable predictor of party preferences and economic beliefs, but I honestly do not see the relevance here...

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but my point is that instead of what parties says, check out for instance unions.I don't see the main struggle in Europe as being between political parties as it is between labour and capital.



I

Back to terminology, my use of "neo-liberal" is basically taken from the Swedish press, where the word is used basically in two ways:

i) For the economic far right, who'd scrap the welfare state (roughly analoguous to American Libertarians, if usually less extreme).
ii) As an insult for anyone to the right of the one using the term.

Clearly, (ii) has no place in reasoned discourse. I think you'll agree that Persson, Blair and Schröder aren't neo-liberals in the sense of (i), and that that is a quite radical position.

I suppose that would be mainstream media, right? No; I think that most people are to the right of me, and I don't use it about everybody. Most common people I know are clearly not neo-liberalists. But neo-liberalism is the leading economical paradigm among the elite today, and the three should be judged by their fruits.I also think that there are degrees of neo-liberalism, and I consider those mentioned as moderate neo-liberalists.
Anyway I propose to agree to disagree since this is a very difficult topic to discuss and we are about to go off-topic as far as I can see. Goodnight to you and the other excellent people at CFC-forum!

 

[Elrohir]

I'm an American, so I guess it really isn't any of my business. But on logical reasons alone, I am against it, (If they tried to pass a NA Union Constitution here in the US, we'd form an angry mob and burn down the Capital Building) for the simple reason, that if a country wishes to leave the EU, for it to be legally binding, they have to agree to whatever demands the EU comes up with. WHATEVER they are, or they literally cannot leave, at least according to the rest of the EU. And while it would make them look really bad if they got all greedy, and I don't think any country is going to try and leave anytime soon - it worries me that the EU may levy unspecified payments before letting member states leave. That's not how National Sovereignty is supposed to work.

That's my $0.02 anyway.

 

[Winner]

I'm an American, so I guess it really isn't any of my business. But on logical reasons alone, I am against it, (If they tried to pass a NA Union Constitution here in the US, we'd form an angry mob and burn down the Capital Building) for the simple reason, that if a country wishes to leave the EU, for it to be legally binding, they have to agree to whatever demands the EU comes up with. WHATEVER they are, or they literally cannot leave, at least according to the rest of the EU. And while it would make them look really bad if they got all greedy, and I don't think any country is going to try and leave anytime soon - it worries me that the EU may levy unspecified payments before letting member states leave. That's not how National Sovereignty is supposed to work.

That's my $0.02 anyway.

The article about leaving EU isn't supposed to be ever used.

But, AFAIK member states of american Union cannot leave it at all, can they?

 

[The Last Conformist]

I would like to elaborate on that but it is getting late. Except that there is a difference between public and state,

Please do elaborate. Unless it be the trivial one of state vs commune or province (landskap, fylke) level, I can't think what distinction you're refering too.

I think it in fact makes little sense on other levels than the rethoric to use monopoly on certain sectors and functions of society. In current political orthodoxy monopoly is always associated with something negative.

Maybe. I'm not in the mod of changing a technical term just because propagandists try and recruit it for their cause.

I suppose that would be mainstream media, right?

Yes. Aligning usage to fringe media wouldn't make too much sense anyway.

(This assuming you don't have a different definition of "mainstream" from me too. Typical examples of mainstream papers, in my eyes, are DN and Aftonbladet.)

No; I think that most people are to the right of me, and I don't use it about everybody. Most common people I know are clearly not neo-liberalists.

I did not say you do use it for everyone to the right of you; I said some people use it as an insult for people to the right of them. In practice, this is mostly done by leftists, and should be taken no more serious than when rightists call everyone to their left commies.

Anyway I propose to agree to disagree since this is a very difficult topic to discuss and we are about to go off-topic as far as I can see. Goodnight to you and the other excellent people at CFC-forum!

Well, I do not suppose either of us is going to change his terminology just to please the other. And, as long as one keeps in mind that definitions differ*, and tries to understand the substance of what the other says, that should be no real problem. Good night!

* The various usages of the word "liberal" on this forum drives me crazy at times.

 

[Elrohir]

The article about leaving EU isn't supposed to be ever used.

But, AFAIK member states of american Union cannot leave it at all, can they?

So what? Member states shouldn't have to bow to the will of the EU and pay up whatever they demand if they want out. It disturbs me to think that Member States are effectively trapped in the EU forever if the EU wants to keep them.

I don't see the relavence, but yes, legally, according to the Constitution, they can leave whenever they want to without any penalties whatsoever. (In practice though, even if the state wanted to, we probably wouldn't let them, like in the Civil War)

 

[Winner]

So what? Member states shouldn't have to bow to the will of the EU and pay up whatever they demand if they want out. It disturbs me to think that Member States are effectively trapped in the EU forever if the EU wants to keep them.

I am afraid you don't understand that article well. I guess it isn't there to exploit leaving states.

I don't see the relavence, but yes, legally, according to the Constitution, they can leave whenever they want to without any penalties whatsoever. (In practice though, even if the state wanted to, we probably wouldn't let them, like in the Civil War)

Strange, I've read your Constitution, but I don't remember any article allowing member states to leave the union. But I guess you know it better than I

 

[Elrohir]

I am afraid you don't understand that article well. I guess it isn't there to exploit leaving states.

I didn't read all of that article. My knowledge of how to leave the EU is from several other articles I've read, and the text of the EU Constitution. I actually looked it up online and read some of it.

Strange, I've read your Constitution, but I don't remember any article allowing member states to leave the union. But I guess you know it better than I

The US Constitution does not mention how a state can leave the Union, true. However, it does leave to the states whatever rights are not specifically mentioned as being held by the Federal Government. So it is logical to conclude that secession is a right that the states, according to the Constitution, legally hold.

 

[Richard Cribb]

That's joke, isn't it? Schröder is socialist and Belka? Slightly centrist socialist.

It is no joke and if you want to discuss this seriously I will have to ask you for a definition of socialism.

I should acquaint you with our main opposition party. You would probably call them anarchocapitalists

I don't like the term anarchocapitalist and never use it. But if you mean libertarians I would demand of a real libertarian to be of the opinion the police and military should be private. I don't think that any of the major parties in your country support this, and I think the differences between major political parties in Europe are minimal nowadays.

Please do elaborate. Unless it be the trivial one of state vs commune or province (landskap, fylke) level, I can't think what distinction you're refering too..

I will have to give you a Reader's Digest version for now. The state is part of the public, the centralized authority that represents the nation and the administrational apparatus which is used for carrying out different tasks needed by society. The public is the civil society and the arena where everybody meets. You can have public without a state but hardly a state without public.
Now it is important what term we chose to use when we are discussing politics. It sounds quite differently if we say getting rid of the state's monopoly or dismantling public property.The first may give associations to the big, threatening Leviathan, the other you and me.

Maybe. I'm not in the mod of changing a technical term just because propagandists try and recruit it for their cause.

What makes you think your usage of the term is less propagandistic?

Yes. Aligning usage to fringe media wouldn't make too much sense anyway..

I strongly disagree. What makes little sense to me is to only refer to mainstream media which in my opinion shows a regrettable lack of critical attitude. What you call fringe media while I prefer alternative media is very often useful corrections since they don't have the same close ties to the established power.Remember that propaganda is most needed in democracies and of the more subtle kind.

(This assuming you don't have a different definition of "mainstream" from me too. Typical examples of mainstream papers, in my eyes, are DN and Aftonbladet.)

I agree on that definition.

(I did not say you do use it for everyone to the right of you; I said some people use it as an insult for people to the right of them. In practice, this is mostly done by leftists, and should be taken no more serious than when rightists call everyone to their left commies.

I didn't really assume that either, but I just wanted to clarify my position. I too can't stand this sort of simplified demagogic use of political terms, whatever side it comes from.

Well, I do not suppose either of us is going to change his terminology just to please the other. And, as long as one keeps in mind that definitions differ*, and tries to understand the substance of what the other says, that should be no real problem. Good night!

I agree, and I strive to understand other's opinions as far as possible.I hope you don't think I am twisting your words or misrepresenting you, in that case I apologize.

* The various usages of the word "liberal" on this forum drives me crazy at times.

Me too. However, since this thread is a typical European one and the posters so far has been exclusively reasonable people like yourself, I just assumed that no harm could be caused by adopting a rather conventional European definition of the term.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I will have to give you a Reader's Digest version for now. The state is part of the public, the centralized authority that represents the nation and the administrational apparatus which is used for carrying out different tasks needed by society. The public is the civil society and the arena where everybody meets. You can have public without a state but hardly a state without public.

Well, the question wasn't what's the difference 'tween the state and public, but what's the difference 'tween state and public ownership.

Now it is important what term we chose to use when we are discussing politics. It sounds quite differently if we say getting rid of the state's monopoly or dismantling public property.The first may give associations to the big, threatening Leviathan, the other you and me.

It's hardly my fault if people have negative associations for "Leviathan" and positive ones for you and me.

What makes you think your usage of the term is less propagandistic?

That I don't use it with a propagandistic intent, but as a technical term.

I strongly disagree. What makes little sense to me is to only refer to mainstream media which in my opinion shows a regrettable lack of critical attitude. What you call fringe media while I prefer alternative media is very often useful corrections since they don't have the same close ties to the established power.Remember that propaganda is most needed in democracies and of the more subtle kind.

I do not see why this would be a reason to adopt unusual usages over common ones.

 

[Winner]

It is no joke and if you want to discuss this seriously I will have to ask you for a definition of socialism.

Oh, so you mean it seriously... Well, Schröeder with his proposals for unified tax rate in all the EU (of course very high to kill the advantage of new member states) really isn't neo-liberal. Neo-liberalism want low taxation and small government, things that are unacceptable for SPD (like any other socdem party).

In socialism (I mean not the societ-style socialism with planned economy), there is usually very high progressive tax, rampant welfare benefits, services like education, pensions or healtcare provided by state, strong trade unions, government control of some big "strategic" companies and so on and so on. Both Schröeder and Belka are from leftist parties that pursue these "socialistic" goals.

You are probably calling them "neo-liberals" just because they have to do some "neo-liberal" reforms to bring out their countries from recession or stagnation and to reduce high unemployment. But that doesn't mean they are neo-liberals! The only one who could (with a little fantasy) fit to be "neo-liberal" is Blair.

I don't like the term anarchocapitalist and never use it. But if you mean libertarians I would demand of a real libertarian to be of the opinion the police and military should be private. I don't think that any of the major parties in your country support this, and I think the differences between major political parties in Europe are minimal nowadays.

Well, there is distinction between anarchocaptialism and libertarianism (the first ones are the radical version of libertarians). But what I mean when I say "you would probably call them anarchocapitalists" is, that if you call pretty leftist politicians "neo-liberal", I don't know how you can call the true rightists

 

[Richard Cribb]

Well, the question wasn't what's the difference 'tween the state and public, but what's the difference 'tween state and public ownership.

It's hardly my fault if people have negative associations for "Leviathan" and positive ones for you and me.

That I don't use it with a propagandistic intent, but as a technical term.

I do not see why this would be a reason to adopt unusual usages over common ones.

My point was basically the rhetorical one, but also the fact that you don't need a state for achieving public ownership, cooperatives is an interesting possibility, for instance .As you probably know by now, I don't exactly love the state(even if I in the present situation very much prefer it to corporations), but I am a staunch supporter of common ownership.
While it is surely not your fault what people associate with different terms, it does not harm to think over what terms you chose to usein political discussions and for what intent.
I never meant that you used any terms with propagandic intents, but I most certainly think that mainstream media and the establishment are .
Regarding unusual and common usage, what I obviously meant is that conformity is not necessarily a virtue...
I am sorry, but I don't think we are getting anywhere, so please apologize me for getting out of this debate.It has been interesting but I feel that I don't have more to contribute with for the moment.
There will be new threads and new opportunities...

Oh, so you mean it seriously... Well, Schröeder with his proposals for unified tax rate in all the EU (of course very high to kill the advantage of new member states) really isn't neo-liberal. Neo-liberalism want low taxation and small government, things that are unacceptable for SPD (like any other socdem party).

I am sorry, but neo-liberalism is more than that. Just check out the political vocabulary and the perspective on the individual contra society.However please also remember that we are talking about democracy and that there are limits for what the elite can do without people's consent. I think all those politician would go much further if they were allowed and that is , as already mentioned, one of the main reasons behind the whole EU-project in my opinion.

In socialism (I mean not the societ-style socialism with planned economy), there is usually very high progressive tax, rampant welfare benefits, services like education, pensions or healtcare provided by state, strong trade unions, government control of some big "strategic" companies and so on and so on. Both Schröeder and Belka are from leftist parties that pursue these "socialistic" goals.

I think your language is quite revealing. "Very high progressive taxes", "rampant welfare benefits". Yes this is socialism allright, and if those people mentioned were prsuing those goals I would agree that they would be socialists. However it so happens that I am over 40, I grew up in a society based on those principles and I have myself seen how neo-liberal principles have taken over the ideological hegemony and the welfare state gradually been shrinked. You are the one joking if you claim that Marek Belka has anything to do with what you yourself define as socialism. I have spent quite a lot of time in Poland recently and have seen for myself the "socialism" of Miller and Belka, thank you very much.
I also think you will have difficulties proving that it is the rich that will bleed from Herr Schröder's "reforms".

You are probably calling them "neo-liberals" just because they have to do some "neo-liberal" reforms to bring out their countries from recession or stagnation and to reduce high unemployment. But that doesn't mean they are neo-liberals! The only one who could (with a little fantasy) fit to be "neo-liberal" is Blair.

This is just rhetorics. They don't have to do those "reforms", in politics there are always choices, one idea would be strenghtening public sector for instance and impose those "very high progressive taxes".However I feel that I am repeating myself from earlier posts so I leave it with this.Regarding fantasy, I can't really see how anybody can get to be a reasonably polically conscient individual without a certain imagination.
And Tony Blair's actions speak for themselves.

Well, there is distinction between anarchocaptialism and libertarianism (the first ones are the radical version of libertarians). But what I mean when I say "you would probably call them anarchocapitalists" is, that if you call pretty leftist politicians "neo-liberal", I don't know how you can call the true rightists

As I already remarked, I find the term anarchocapitalist to be bogus, and I prefer to discuss libertarians.
I could call the true rightists a lot depending on their ideological status, extreme neo-liberalists would be one opportunity, some would be conservatives, and for the anti-democratic, violent of them fascists. Religious fundamentalist could also be a fitting term for some.
And with is I regard our discussion for finished as well.

 

[King Alexander]

I find the Constitution simply a 'beginning', since I'm not fully satsified with it. I'm inclined more towards yes, but I have somehow, serious doubts: I don't want the EU to move into privitizing educational system or fully privitized health care system, but we'll see what will come.

A poster(luceafarul?) said that NATO will going to be into the EU Constutution? I don't understand what business has NATO to be into our constitution - NATO is a treaty, a treaty that could end at any moment or continue to exist for decades - this is one of 2 reasons for me to reject the whole project.

The second reason is if we make Javier Solana foreing minister - I'd reject the whole project just for this reason.

Of course, I could go to live in Norway or Sweden if we mess our current way of life too much.