Tim,

> Well, for starters, I won't be putting the English collation anywhere near
> the French collation.

No need to worry. If two Europeans are having an argument all you need
to to to restore entente cordiale is mention your glorious leader :P

Eryk

Dominic,

> Didn't know that. Makes me wonder about any HRW report.

I'm not saying that there is no truth in the report, just that it misses
the point in several respects. The current President has solid support
from groups like pensioners and state enterprise employees because,
unlike Russia, Ukraine and Georgia which descended into kleptocracy, he
always made sure they were paid on time during the economic chaos of the
90's.

Just as a person blind from birth doesn't miss the fact that he can't
see, a soviet era pensioner doesn't miss a free press. What he does care
about is whether the heating in his apartment works and whether he has
money to buy something to eat. Lukashenko has always made sure that what
really mattered to the bulk of the electorate was taken care of and
consequently he retains quite enough popular support to retain power.

Repression of the media and political opponents doesn't take place
because it is essential to maintaining power, it takes place because
these are Soviet era people with Soviet era mentalities - and that means
that anyone "trash talking" about "the boss" deserves a "slap" as a
matter of basic principle.

> Wait, I might have misunderstood this. Do you mean they are allowing the
> unemployed to rot, or do you suggest it?

I mean they 'are' doing that. French and German unemployment rates are
unconcionably high and playing games with immigration levels, work
permits and 35 hour working weeks isn't going to fix the problem. The
only way to turn the situation around is to engineer economic growth and
the only way to do that is to liberalise the economy. Naturally that
means confronting and defeating the trades unions since unions by their
very nature will only ever concern themselves with the welfare of those
already in employment.

> Untrue. The US have recently proven that they _only_ listen to nations
> that are heavily armed and disrespect others. It's primitive, it's
> medieval, it's backward, but it's the new American way, like it or not.
> I don't subscribe to "The New American Century", and I'm amazed you do.

I don't subscribe to that, but equally I don't know what case(s) you are
thinking of when you contend that the USA listen to nations if they are
heavily armed enough. Granted the USA listened to the USSR, but that was
because everyone knew that the USSR was prepared to actually *use*
military force if need be - and it periodically reminded everyone of
that fact (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan). Simply possessing
weapons is not enough, you have to be prepared to use them and ensure
that everyone else is thoroughly convinced of that.

I therefore return to the original question. Are you suggesting that a
militarily capable EU should or would bomb New York to prevent the Iraq
invasion? The USA is not going to listen to a country/entity just
because it has a lot of tanks and guns - it will listen only if it is
convinced that those weapons would really be used. My position is that
the EU would not and should not take such action - therefore spending
the money necessary to rival the USA militarily would be futile.

> But what is the delta? Which gov't is growing fastest?

The British one is, primarily because of the fully state run health
service and the huge (but short term) investments being made there over
the last few years. However, if one cancels out short term issues like
that the underlying structural differential remains at about 5% and it
has been like that since the privatisations and reforms of the Thatcher era.

> Le Pen voters primarily vote anti-immigration, and by that they mean

I know what their reasons were, but you can't expect to be regarded as a
'responsible' country to play a leadership role in the EU with 17 out of
100 of your electorate voting for a racist anti-semite like Le Pen. It
cannot be rationalised away - only contained.

> I understand where you're going, but I don't distrust France and Germany
> in such a huge degree as you do. I think that, in order to build
> something, you have to find common ground, not try to pull the rug from
> under each other.

I agree entirely. Unfortunately France and Germany do not, as evidenced
by the way Schroeder and Chirac stitched up a back room deal to block
any revision of CAP until 2014 prior to the accession of the 10 Eastern
members. That was the final proof that you can't trust the French and
Germans to do anything besides look after their own national interests.

If you need more evidence, look at the persistent flouting of the
Stability and Growth pact rules and Schroeder and Chirac (again)
stitching up a deal to block any enforcement action. Neither the EU nor
the Euro Zone will work effectively until things are re-engineered such
that a Franco-German 'block vote' on an issue can be defeated. You won't
see the UK in the Euro Zone until then either - for the same reason.

> Could be, but I need to make sure whether you still have some degree of
> humanity in your agenda.

If I sound heartless regarding forcing French Farmers out of business it
is only because I am more concerned with the far greater problems of
their colleagues in Latvia, Poland ...and soon Romania and Bulgaria

Eryk

Roy,

>>The French public sector consumes about 24.68% of GDP - in the UK it is
>>about 20.48%.
>
> We must be catching up though. Whilst Labour have been in office we've lost over 1 million manufacturing jobs whilst picking up 1/2 million government jobs.

We are catching up, but it can't last unless Brown decides to dump his
"golden rule" - which is unlikely.

Eryk

Hi Scott,

> Yeah.. was thinking about having a few beers and rattling off some
> sensless crap and see who gets worked up over nothing.. hehe

Isn't that a normal post for you though? <bgd&r>
--
Best regards

Stevo

"Scott Martin" <scottmartin@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:7C1829A3-1D6F-4663-83AE-23451B050144@news.elevatesoft.com...
> Yeah.. was thinking about having a few beers and rattling off some
> sensless crap and see who gets worked up over nothing.. hehe
>
> Scott.
>
> "Roy Lambert" <roy.lambert@skynet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:EC3349B4-9474-44AA-8D1C-AF012EBDD2C3@news.elevatesoft.com...
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> Hello - having a good lurk
>>
>> I think we need to keep this thread going 1) its fascinating and 2) if we
>> can it'll soon be the longest deepest ever thread on any of Tim's
>> newsgroups <chuckle>.
>>
>> Roy Lambert
>>
>
>

"Dominic Willems" <domus.software@pandora.be> wrote on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:36:44 +0100

>Jeff Cook wrote:
>> Napoleon also, for some unimaginable reason, decided to change a
>> custom that had been going on from pre-Roman times.
>
>Oh, I don't doubt the Commonwealth is pretty frustrated they are driving
>on the wrong side of the road. Actually, they have whole bags full of
>excuses to bash the French. Time they did something constructive, I say.
>

Like the constructive things the French do?  Like having their secret service (which wasn't very secret) sink a ship and kill one of the crew in a NZ port.  After the French agents that were caught had been convicted and imprisoned, the NZ government foolishly trusted the French when they said the would lock them up on an atoll to serve out their sentences.  Needless to say they are both back in France and haven't served their sentences because one was "sick" and the other pregnant!

>Well, start driving on the right side then. Don't the Americans? They
>eventually got rid of the monarchic charade.

The American were briefly in love with the French at the time (mainly because they were at war with the Brits) and aped everything that the French did - including changing sides of the road!  The French were still really monarchists having killed of their royals and started new ones called "Emperors".  The US still think along imperial lines though, but the French have had second thoughs - we hope

Cheers

Jeff

--
Jeff Cook
Aspect Systems Ltd
Phone: +64-9-424 5388
Skype: jeffcooknz
www.aspect.co.nz

Erik,

> The current President has solid support from groups like pensioners
> and state enterprise employees because, unlike Russia, Ukraine and
> Georgia which descended into kleptocracy
I can't agree here with you. They haven't any choice in last 10 years.
They can't change the President, they haven't any opposite politic party.
They can view the local + russian TV with strong ideology (like in USSR) but
they can't see any other channels and they haven't any alternative
information.

> he always made sure they were paid on time during the economic chaos
> of the 90's.
I'm not sure that $10-20 per month for pensioner during 90's is good point.
They were not paid enough and economic in Belarus don't show any good
results. They have the donations from Russia but they are not independent.

Belarus and Turkmenia/Uzbekistan have no President, they have the Zar/King
and they haven't any alternative. Show me any country in Europe with same
situation.
--
With best regards, Mike Shkolnik
E-mail: mshkolnik@scalabium.com
WEB: http://www.scalabium.com

Jeff Cook wrote:
> Like the constructive things the French do?

Yes, they provide me with snails, oysters, wine, cheese, a cheap
Citroën, Peugeot or Renault that'll do me at least a thousand miles,
they're hosting a big new and fresh fusion reactor, had superfast trains
since the early eighties, host Airbus Industries, make silly films, and
generally are geared to enjoying life.

And all you give me is...kiwis. Hairy fruit.

> Like having their secret
> service (which wasn't very secret) sink a ship and kill one of the
> crew in a NZ port.

I hereby grant you the right to sink one French ship. So you are even
and you are able to eventually forgive and forget.

> The French were
> still really monarchists having killed of their royals and started
> new ones called "Emperors".

They created ONE (and a half) silly emperor, and all you do is complain!
Just look at how much joy he is still bringing to allll mental
institutions all over the globe!

> The US still think along imperial lines
> though, but the French have had second thoughs - we hope

They're docile bon-vivants, trust me.

Mike,

> I can't agree here with you. They haven't any choice in last 10 years.
> They can't change the President,

They can. The referendum last year was certainly not entirely "clean"
but the level of rigging was not enough to alter the outcome.

> they haven't any opposite politic party.

True, and for much of the electorate that is a normal state of affairs.

> They can view the local + russian TV with strong ideology (like in USSR) but
> they can't see any other channels and they haven't any alternative
> information.

EuroNews is carried too, also most medium sized post offices have
"Internet Cafe" facilities and sites like Charter97 are not banned via a
firewall as they are in China etc.

> I'm not sure that $10-20 per month for pensioner during 90's is good point.
> They were not paid enough and economic in Belarus don't show any good
> results. They have the donations from Russia but they are not independent.

Belarus is the second highest perfoming CIS state (in terms of GDP PPP)
after Russia itself and that is without any significant petrochemical
reserves to shore things up.

> Belarus and Turkmenia/Uzbekistan have no President, they have the Zar/King
> and they haven't any alternative. Show me any country in Europe with same
> situation.

I do not disagree with that. My point is that the >50yr electorate by
and large (meaning outside of the major cities) do not WANT an
alternative and they won't elect one even if it is available. There are
four candidates in the Presidential elections next month and only one of
them has any chance of winning. There will of course be some ballot
stuffing and sundry other irregularities but, even cancelling that out,
the unpleasant fact is that the status quo will be maintained here (just
as it was in Uzbekistan) by a genuine majority vote.

Turkmenbashi is a slightly different matter - he is completely mad and
fostering a personality cult of North Korean proportions. I don't have
enough experience of the Turkmen electorate to comment on the dynamics
of all that.

Eryk

Hi Eryk,

Just so you don't feel alone on this I totally agree with what
you were saying, in terms that it checks out with my sources and
feelings. I also heard lots of negative things regarding The Pres.
and how things are in Belarus, but in most cases they come from
sources/people either not living in Belarus, or who had emigrated
or young idealistic people, who want "freedom" and are not always
aware of the price. I didn't think like that 10 years ago, but now
I do believe that in the long run Belarusia won tremendously by
remaining very conservative from 91 to 06. I'm sure they will get
all the freedom they ever need within next few years - it'll get
warmer as they enter EEP (I don't know english abbreviation).

And I strongly disagree with Mike regarding Russian propaganda.
The only things that are missing from Russian media (I often watch
them parallel to EuroNews) are mandatory rusophobic remarks
and hints at the end of each comment.

Another thing I wanted to comment on - mentality wise - is that I
don't agree 100% with you when you say, that Lukashenko "slapping"
people who "trash talking" has anything to do with "Soviet era people
with Soviet era mentalities". I believe he's a man (or trying to
play such role) of simple basic principles. He's not a Harvard
educate or a foxy smart european type politician. He's healthy,
strong man ("muzhik") with very basic fundamental morals.
I bet his father would hit him in a face and knock him down if he
tells a lie. This is what he (and most of people east of Brest)
believe to be the right thing to do and that what he does (or the
image he aims at) and that, I believe, what any person who project
at being a "leader" over there (generally, among russians) is expected
to be like, ideally - before or after Soviets, ever. That's
part of the culture.


Cheers,
Michael




Eryk Bottomley wrote:
> Mike,
>
>> I can't agree here with you. They haven't any choice in last 10 years.
>> They can't change the President,
>
> They can. The referendum last year was certainly not entirely "clean"
> but the level of rigging was not enough to alter the outcome.
>
>> they haven't any opposite politic party.
>
> True, and for much of the electorate that is a normal state of affairs.
>
>> They can view the local + russian TV with strong ideology (like in
>> USSR) but
>> they can't see any other channels and they haven't any alternative
>> information.
>
> EuroNews is carried too, also most medium sized post offices have
> "Internet Cafe" facilities and sites like Charter97 are not banned via a
> firewall as they are in China etc.
>
>> I'm not sure that $10-20 per month for pensioner during 90's is good
>> point.
>> They were not paid enough and economic in Belarus don't show any good
>> results. They have the donations from Russia but they are not
>> independent.
>
> Belarus is the second highest perfoming CIS state (in terms of GDP PPP)
> after Russia itself and that is without any significant petrochemical
> reserves to shore things up.
>
>> Belarus and Turkmenia/Uzbekistan have no President, they have the
>> Zar/King
>> and they haven't any alternative. Show me any country in Europe with same
>> situation.
>
> I do not disagree with that. My point is that the >50yr electorate by
> and large (meaning outside of the major cities) do not WANT an
> alternative and they won't elect one even if it is available. There are
> four candidates in the Presidential elections next month and only one of
> them has any chance of winning. There will of course be some ballot
> stuffing and sundry other irregularities but, even cancelling that out,
> the unpleasant fact is that the status quo will be maintained here (just
> as it was in Uzbekistan) by a genuine majority vote.
>
> Turkmenbashi is a slightly different matter - he is completely mad and
> fostering a personality cult of North Korean proportions. I don't have
> enough experience of the Turkmen electorate to comment on the dynamics
> of all that.
>
> Eryk

> > Like having their secret
> > service (which wasn't very secret) sink a ship and kill one of the
> > crew in a NZ port.
>
> I hereby grant you the right to sink one French ship. So you are even
> and you are able to eventually forgive and forget.

Mind if I pop in. It seems to be a popular thread. I don't think it's a
matter of forgiving, but more a matter of justice. I'd have to agree with
Jeff here. To have someone convicted in your own country, and sentenced, and
then to do the nice thing by them and their country to have then sent back
to be closer to their own family, where their own country then betrayes the
confidense you put in them, and let's them out does not show justice.
Justice and forgiveness are two completely seperate areas IMO.

In the same sence though, I don't think France can be singled out. I'm one
who has lost complete trust in the Justice system as I currently know it in
the Western world.  Too much corruption, and to many ideals for me I'm
afraid.

Cheers

Adam.