Article

2005-03-09 Europe

German opposition has majority over Schroeder

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-03-09 11:30:28 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 German unemployment has soared to 12.6 percent with 5.2 million jobless - the highest level since Adolf Hitler took power in 1933

That should make the French and Poles nervous. The Poles have someone who is grateful for their willingness to be a member of the Coalition of the Willing. The French are screwed.

Posted by Thrainter Cliling3962 2005-03-09 11:41:48 AM|| 2005-03-09 11:41:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 France isn't doing much better economically. Germany wouldn't want them this time. Too much work, too much whine...

Posted by mmurray821 2005-03-09 12:03:22 PM|| 2005-03-09 12:03:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 That should make the French and Poles nervous. The Poles have someone who is grateful for their willingness to be a member of the Coalition of the Willing. The French are screwed.

No way. The Germans are no longer the young and aggressive population they were. They are old, they have no margins to grow their military (Staee and welfare spend over 50% of their GNP) but more importantly their civilisation has become infested with political correctness and abject cowardice.

Remember those massive demonstrations: "Better Red than dead". Remember that their authorities are telling them to avoid resisting thieves and thugs. After a time the fact of being unarmed, the fact of being impotent in front of armed threat and having to cow ends making cowards from people. They could as courageous as any for say saving someone from a fire but not for the kind of courage you need in war.

And if their school system is any way like in France it is hard at work in brainwashing their kids into not resisting agressions, into telling the violent "oh, it is very bad to be violent", into having the kids go to the teacher when someone is bullying them. Bulls..t. When I was three years old I picked a fight with an bigger boy because he was bullying younger kids. I lasted three seconds but THAT was the proper thing to do, that was our spirit. But today? It is not with whinners who went to the teacher to tell about bullies that you could build a military, even a defence-oriented military.

Posted by JFM 2005-03-09 12:35:33 PM|| 2005-03-09 12:35:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 The highest unemployment rate since 1933 and a slowing economy are battering German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrats with a poll Wednesday showing the opposition conservatives would currently win a clear majority.

I can hear the theme from Dragnet playing.

Dum-de-dum dum....

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-09 12:40:44 PM|| 2005-03-09 12:40:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 British Unemployment 30-Year Low

Lemmee see - Looks like if you are going to be a Socialist, be one that doesn't have a burka wish....

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-09 12:41:43 PM|| 2005-03-09 12:41:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 For those of us American rantburgers that know little about what German conservatism is, what could the world expect if that party defeated Chancellor Schroeder's party?

Posted by Jules 187 2005-03-09 12:57:42 PM|| 2005-03-09 12:57:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 For those of us American rantburgers that know little about what German conservatism is, what could the world expect if that party defeated Chancellor Schroeder's party?

Liberalism without the Anti-Americanism...

Posted by mmurray821 2005-03-09 1:20:09 PM|| 2005-03-09 1:20:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Liberalism without the Anti-Americanism

oooh. Less Anti-Americanism would be nice but for the bigger problems, liberalism is too soft and wimpy to be able to cope.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-09 1:26:57 PM|| 2005-03-09 1:26:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 BigEd - what that article doesn't mention is that Labour have created nearly one million new public sector jobs since 1997 (an inflation of ca. 15%). Making a million more people dependent on the taxpayer for their salaries is not healthy, but does, conveniently, expand Labour's likely voting base.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-09 1:55:05 PM|| 2005-03-09 1:55:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 It's no wonder Blair's smiling.

It's also worth pointing out that those jobs are almost all non-frontline positions. They're pen-pushers, and the new positions alone outnumber the Army's total strength by about ten to one.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-09 1:59:02 PM|| 2005-03-09 1:59:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Bulldog: You are correct.

That's a problem with the Dems here too. Create a reliance and create voters mentality.

But you have the unfortunate problem of the Conservatives being, for what I read softer on the terrorism than Blair is - it seems on odd juxtuposition of views. I don't think Margaret Thatcher would oppose Iraq and other policies just for the sake of opposing as Howard seems to be doing...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-09 2:01:16 PM|| 2005-03-09 2:01:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 The link I gave in #10 is out of date - there will be even fewer Army personnel now after Blair's cuts to the armed forces last year.

Howard's made some fairly low-blow attacks on Blair re. Iraq, for purely partisan reasons (he and most of the Tory party - in fact a higher proportion of the Tory party than Labour - was in favour of the war) but they're not 'soft on terror'. Right now they're embroiled in a fight, alongside the Lib Dems and the vast majority of the House of Lords, against Blair's latest anti-terror legislation which is widely seen as an cynical attempt by Labour to paint the opposition as 'soft on terror'. In fact, Labour's bill is a real travesty - it rides roughshod over the most fundamental aspects of English law (habeas corpus, political influence in detentions, etc.) and is unnecessarily draconian. They're right to oppose such measures even though the public are largely in support of the Government.

Look at how the Tories and Labour have treated terrorism in Northern Ireland - Blair's strategy has been one of comprehensive appeasement of the violent factions (at least, the IRA). The Tories' line has always been much more uncompromising, which hasn't necessarily always been the wiser route but which has been the 'harder on terror'.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-09 2:20:23 PM|| 2005-03-09 2:20:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 yah, well the Tories have been the hawks on Ireland for the last 125 years. Actually more like almost 200 years, if you count opposition to Catholic empancipation. Thats not really about them being "harder on terror" just tougher on Ireland.

So is the Blair law anymore draconian than the Patriot Act, or then the proposed Patriot Act 2? Fact is if Ted Kennedy were making the same objections to said acts that Howard is to Blairs act, everyone here would rip him apart. As for allying with the Lib Dems, thats hardly a reassuring thought.

Anyway, wasnt this about GERMAN politics?

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-03-09 2:26:56 PM|| 2005-03-09 2:26:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Yes, lh, it was... If the CDU takes over, wouldn't Angela Merkel, an ex-East German become Chancellor?...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-09 2:36:41 PM|| 2005-03-09 2:36:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 You don't think Tory attitudes have changed since the Nineteenth Century, Lh? I'm surprised at you; you're not usually so out of touch. Under Blair we're now at a position where the IRA think they can openly declare themselves as judge, jury and - literally - executioner of individuals in Norther Irish commnunities, and presumably expect to be thanked for it. Who can blame them, given the carte blanche they now have? They think they're the law, because they have been allowed to behave like the law. That's what New Labour have given to the Catholic communities of Northern Ireland.

From the BBC:

The most controversial element initially was that the new orders would allow an elected politician, rather than a judge, to effectively deprive a British citizen of their liberty - something which critics say is the biggest threat to civil freedoms in the UK for more than 300 years. Although the home secretary has given ground and said that a judge should impose the orders, there is still concern about Britons being subject to restrictions without trial, or even knowing what the case or evidence against them is.

Maybe you're happy to throw away liberties that no Gevernment has seen fit to remove from the population for three centuries - and all that happened during that time - but I see this as yet more flippancy and contempt for time-honoured British traditions and constitutional legacies from our current Government. For heaven's sake, the formal removal of the necessity of habeas corpus wasn't needed during two world wars and all throughout the Northern Ireland troubles.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-09 2:44:25 PM|| 2005-03-09 2:44:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 The BBC has said the same or worse about US security measures. How come theyre biased lefties when they do that, but protectors of British liberties when the attack Blair?

Im certainly not saying the Tories take the same stands as in the 19th century - Im simply pointing out that the Tories have always taken a more hardline view of Ireland, long before terror was an issue, and that this hardly shows them to be tougher on terrorism in general, which is the issue that came up. Pardon me - i have no truck with the IRA, and I despise Americans who supported it, but right now the peace and security of the world is threatened not by the IRA, but by Jihadi/Salafi terrorists, and Blair has been a leader in the struggle against them, while Torys AND Lib Dems snip at his heels, and I dont see that historic differnces between Tories and Labour on Ireland trump that.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-03-09 3:01:44 PM|| 2005-03-09 3:01:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 It's no coincidence that abolishing habeas corpus conveniently makes British law much more in line with continental European law. If Blair gets his way now: that's one EU-integrational hurdle out of the way. If you think that sounds paranoid: why has Blair refused to even put a time-limit on the measures, when all that's been asked for by the opposition is an annual review? If it's an emergency measure, why on earth insist on making it permanent?

...this hardly shows them to be tougher on terrorism in general...

The issue wasn't whether the Tories were tougher on terrorism than Labour - I was responding to BigEd's thoughts that the Tories were 'softer'. I don't doubt that either party takes Islamic terrorism very, very seriously - they're going about how to deal with the problem in characteristically different ways - the Conservatives conservatively wishing to protect the venerable British legal system whilst Labour is trying to progressively break that down and try something else - something unnecessary, dangerous in terms of individual rights, and inferior, IMO.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-09 3:14:57 PM|| 2005-03-09 3:14:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Well from where I sit Schroeder seems to be able to overcome problems like this, He will maintain a collation government by bring in smaller liberal parties that can manage the required 5% of the vote and win parliament seats and cling to power. Joska Fischer is the most popular politician in Germany. I am not going to hold my breath.

I expect US relations with Germany to get worse not better by the way. Reading comments on weblogs from Germans is the reason for this. The stupidity and hate of many Germans in relation the US despite the very bad condition and, severe employment of their own county is mind boggling.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-03-09 3:30:05 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-03-09 3:30:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Joska Fischer is the most popular politician in Germany.

Apparently, no more:

"Fischer's traditional supporters - the liberal media - are deserting him. Der Spiegel recently devoted two cover stories to the visa debacle and the liberal Die Zeit last week accused the 56-year-old of 'naivety', 'arrogance' and 'narcissism'. Last week, for the first time in years, he failed to top a poll by the broadcaster ZDF to find Germany's most popular politician."

The stupidity and hate of many Germans in relation the US despite the very bad condition

That's really the trend though, isn't it? Everywhere from the Muslim world to South America, the US is blamed for domestic failures. It's ever the way. But it's particularly depressing to read of Germans looking to scapegoats once again to blame, given the ample lessons from history that they have to show where that insane attitude can lead.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-09 3:37:54 PM|| 2005-03-09 3:37:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 ...it's particularly depressing to read of Germans looking to scapegoats once again to blame, given the ample lessons from history that they have to show where that insane attitude can lead.

Exactimundo!

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-09 3:43:59 PM|| 2005-03-09 3:43:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 "It's no coincidence that abolishing habeas corpus conveniently makes British law much more in line with continental European law."

Evidence please. Not all European nations may *name* it "habeas corpus", but AFAIK pretty much all of them have a version of it. Certainly the European Conventions of Human Rights incorporate it.

This smells like another attempt to demonize the EU, even on issues that have nothing at all to do with it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-09 3:50:49 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-09 3:50:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 It's no coincidence that abolishing habeas corpus conveniently makes British law much more in line with continental European law.

You have no tradition of suspending habeus corpus in an emergency, as this other Common Law democracy has, explicitly written into the Constitution? Im surprised.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-03-09 3:56:13 PM|| 2005-03-09 3:56:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 lh : The Europeans, for the most part, have never heard of Abraham Lincoln, and consider our Civil War irrelevant...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-09 4:12:47 PM|| 2005-03-09 4:12:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Evidence please.

As you're too lazy and/or incompetent to do your own Googling, here's something Melanie Philips wrote in 2001 in reference to the pan-EU arrest warrant, just as a taster:

"The British courts will have no option but to approve the request by a Greek or Spanish judge to lock up someone in a foreign jail. Once abroad, the suspect could find himself facing trial for a different crime altogether; or he may even be extradited merely for questioning. Cheerio habeas corpus. Far from being the bedrock of our protection against the use of arbitrary and oppressive authority, our courts will be turned into rubber stamps for judicial kidnapping by foreign powers."

And:

"The EU Constitution will ... allow movement towards an EU criminal justice system on the continental model, which doesn't have juries or habeas corpus (the right to be brought before a judge to have your detention legally and publicly justified), through harmonisation of national laws and mutual recognition of judicial and extra-judicial decisions

...

Historically, English law has been a shield of the people, standing in stark contrast to Europe's Napoleonic criminal law, which does not safeguard law against its use by government as a weapon. English law does not permit police to arrest citizens without evidence or to hold them more than 48 hours without presenting charges in open court. The European system permits police to arrest citizens on suspicion and to detain them indefinitely while preparing a case against them. Moreover, the accused European has no right to see the evidence against him, no right to a jury trial and no right to an open court. His case is decided by a professional judge, whose career and advancement are dependent on the state that brings the case. The new "Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill" contains a provision (109) that removes Parliament from the decision to replace English law with Europe's Corpus Juris. Unless Parliament rejects this provision, the EU Council of Ministers in Brussels, with the concurrence of the British Home Secretary, can vote away English legal protections and replace habeas corpus with Napoleon's code."

Lh - I'm by no means a legal expert. I'm sure that habeas corpus has been suspended before, in fact I think it has been during warime - but Blair wants to remove such protections from individuals under chosen circumstances permanently.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-09 4:30:51 PM|| 2005-03-09 4:30:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 All below are excerpts from:
http://www.poptel.org.uk/against-eurofederalism/cj44.htm

"Corpus Juris would ostensibly empower the European Public Prosecutor to imprison anyone for up to six months, renewable for a further three months, pending investigation, if they are alleged to be guilty of fraud which could damage the EU. The decision to prosecute is made by the EPP following which investigations are carried out to ascertain if there is enough evidence to prosecute. The reverse of UK law."

"Mainland European courts consist of professional judges, not jurors or lay magistrates thus doing away with Habeas Corpus and Jury trials."

"Objection to any trial publicity, whether in the public interest or not, by either side would result in proceedings in secret."

Posted by Tom 2005-03-09 7:03:24 PM|| 2005-03-09 7:03:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 France has trial by jury. But only for murders and similar offences. And the composition of the jury is three professional judges and six citizens. In theory those judges cannot be removed by the governemnt (in fact they were during late XIXth century persecution of the Church by the Third Republic).

But trial by jury is not only about pressures on the judges. It is about crimes being judged by the people. The people as in "We, the people of the United States". Being judged according to conscience and ethics by a jury represnting the nation instead of by mere civil servants (and in the case of France judges are unelected).

In the case of France we also have the "juge d'instruction" a magistrate who supervises the investigation. But in France he is actively involved in the search of the truth. Meaning that at times they get carried on and try to nab the suspect instead of acting imparcially.

And AFAIK, but IANAL, there is no provision for double jeopardy

Posted by JFM 2005-03-09 7:11:32 PM|| 2005-03-09 7:11:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 The right to be judged by your peers goes back to the Magna Carta - No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals .....

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-09 7:28:48 PM|| 2005-03-09 7:28:48 PM|| Front Page Top

00:02 Deacon Blues
23:59 Cyber Sarge
23:54 Eric Jablow
23:52 .com
23:37 Bobby
23:24 Silentbrick
23:24 Bobby
23:22 Deacon Blues
23:16 CrazyFool
23:12 Peppah
23:10 trailing wife
23:06 CrazyFool
23:05 Alaska Paul
23:04 Frank G
23:03 Frank G
23:02 Peppah
23:01 Bobby
22:56 trailing wife
22:52 trailing wife
22:52 Frank G
22:51 Silentbrick
22:51 Bomb-a-rama
22:50 Deacon Blues
22:48 Alaska Paul