The Economist writes open letter to Mr. Berlusconi

No,

What Americans call liberals is what we call “hippies” (pot smoking lads in California for example). If we are talking about liberals in Europe, we don’t mean conservatives because that’s another thing. I think a European liberal party would be very similar to the Democrats, while our conservatives are more Republican. There are no social democratic or green parties in the US, but there are some MP’s who could be seen as a “green” or a “socialist” fraction in the Congress or Senate.

Problem is the difference between continental and Anglo-Saxon politics. In Europe, a political party represents an ideology. In America, you have two political parties, each of them consisting of different opinions. A republican in the US can be pro-Abortian, while his colleague, who’s also republican, can be against it. In Europe, MP’s just say what their party wants them to say. While it would be normal for a republican to question Bush on his foreign policy, in Belgium, a MP of a coalition-party should actually just shut his mouth and do whatever the gov’t is asking him. Not very democratic.

In the US a “liberal” is what we call in Europe a “Social-Democrat” ( Center-Left ideology ).

In Europe a “liberal” is what the Americans identify as a “Conservative” ( Center-Right ideology)…

I know its confusing…

Would Israel have survived in 67 and 73 without the help of free F-4’s they got from the US? Doubt it

Israel is counted as Europe by many institutions (like the ERAA) and companies (such as BA).
Israel will not be able to focus on domestic problems solely for a long time yet. I will probaly be dead the day the Saudis even get one import from Israel.
Israel, actually, Sauron, probaly would have survived. Israel has a very powerful army. Israel destroyed half of Egypt’s air force and doubled Israel’s side (invading the Sinai, now back in Egyptian hands) in 1967 and ’73.

Don’t want to be a pain in the ass but I’m really not looking forward to let an Arab state become member of the EU. The way I’m looking at the EU, is a new state, not some economic union or international organisation à la UN.

I don’t agree with the part of Russia and Turkey being European states (culturally). Too much differences. And Russia is way too big to become a member. I support the 12 new memberstates joining the EU, eventually even backward countries like Albania will become member, but Turkey is a problem on its own. I’d rather have Israel as a member than Turkey to be honest, let alone a Palestinian state, even though I think they should have a state on their own.

What I hope is relations between the EU and Israel will normalise, so that Israel can focus totally on its own domestic problems. And if Israel would become a NATO-member, I honestly believe they would feel a bit safer. The problem now is that there’s just one nation that’s supporting Israel’s actions, the US. Even the UK stands by the EU-position. Israel as a NATO-member wouldn’t feel itself that isolated anymore, ofcourse, that would mean that Europe should also take responsabilities in its NATO actions. Israel would be forced to take decissions multilaterally, but on the other hand, wouldn’t be left alone.

Geforce

I do understand what the E in EU stands for and I am sure the Turks do as well (at least those who live in Europe do). The EU is, if nothing else, a handy method of distingushing “us from them”, but the European parts of both Turkey and Russia are as much European as Iceland is. I think it evident that both will be in sooner or later.

Canada obviously has strong Europen roots but so does the US. I am not advocating that they become members of the EU.

Your comment about Israel and NATO is very interesting. I agree that it would force some ‘attitude ‘ changes in a number of regions. Lets face it, Israel would have been destroyed had it not been for the US stepping in when Europe stepped out .

The UN has proven it is largely a useless organization when it comes to solving political problems It’s possible NATO could be much more effective body in reaching a lasting agreement between Israel and the Palistinian authority.

Perhaps it would allow the US to step back a bit and the European members to step forward a bit. Give the Palistinians membership as well if that’s what it takes. Put them in a position to make a deal with Israel without feeling the need to look around to see if the Arab states in the region approve, only to discover there is no one there.

Regards

Sauron

Israel

Sauron, the E in the EU stands for European. AFAIK, Israel, geographically at least, is not a European state. (Culturally Israel certainly is European, but so are Australia and Canada.) Neither is Turkey or Russia. Of these three countries, Israel is probably the only one which I think should have a chance to apply for a membership, though I don’t think Brussels is really waiting to get a new “borderconflict”, with the Palestinians.
But if we would allow Israel to join, next ones will be Morocco, Lybia …

Maybe a trade union between Israel and the EU would be a good start. Or a small military cooperationship to patrol the Mediterranian.

But what about Israel joining NATO. How would that help? Maybe that would scare of other states in the neighbourhood, so Israel would be able to live in an “artificial peace”. It’s not exactly the peace everyone has hoped for (like the Oslo-treaties in the early nineties), but it might prevent new suicide attacks.I think NATO could do a more useful job protecting Israeli borders. Has this actually ever been an idea, to let Israel join NATO?

Apart from that, Israel is already a member of many other, less important European organisations like the OSCE and the Council of Europe.

While politically speaking Israel and the US are closer, economically speaking Israel is closer to the EU than to the US. In fact, the EU is Israel largest trading partner, and Israel has signed numerous very important agreements with the EU, mainly in the economic field. However, Israel is also working closely with the EU on the Galileo project, so the cooperation between the EU and Israel has more bedy to it than entirely economic cooperation. Currently, Israeli ministers have also raised the idea of Israel becoming an EU member. I don’t see that happening too soon though.

It’s definitely a fact Sauron. The reason are certainly more complex.

Israel is mainly supported by the US . There are historical , political , and … electoral reason. The big and influent jewish community in the US obliges more or less the US to support Israel.

They US and the EU are in an economic competition. I guess that since the US are the main partner of Isreal , the european who have historical bonds with the middle east trend to support some of the other countries in this region.

It’s ironic that Israel is the only country in the middle-east that would currently quality for membership in the EU and is also the only one not supported by many in the EU.
:confused:

Sauron

Originally posted by Sauron
Geforce

I may be mistaken, but hasn’t the French government also recently passed a law to protect the French president from prosecution while he/she is in office?

1953 for the correct year.

Vortex,

If a country wants to join the EU, it has to be a liberal democracy. We don’t force countries to become democracies, but once they’ve signed the papers and became member, they also have to fulfill their commitments. The EU is giving lots of benefits to these countries, mainly Italy and France, but then in turn, they should also respect the guidelines that are delivered with the EU-package, and that its that each member should be a liberal democracy. Otherwise, the EU would be even more uncontrollable, I hope you can understand that.

What would happen if the state of Texas one day wants to abandon democracy. Wouldn’t that upset the other states. Either way you look at it, Italy is becoming less and less of a democracy and this is worrying. I still think there’s a difference between being worried about some country because it’s losing some of its democratical principles and simply bombing it. We shouldn’t judge Italy on their foreign policy, but it’s their internal affairs that worry me. If one man controlls all media, parties of the majority, the parliament and now also has the power to fire judges he doesn’t like, isn’t that what we call a dictatorship?

Sauron,

I hope problems will be solved with a permanent president. We should have the best man on the best place. The annual EU-summits in each host-country are for example very expensive, and because politicians hide themselves behind an impressive police force, it seems like the EU itself is undemocratic. The only thing that’s undemocratic about the EU is the fact that the parliament doesn’t have much power, but all decissions are made by the national ministers instead of the elected EMP’s.
This should change with the constitution. Now we will have real laws and not just agreements between the individual gov’ts. Therefor, all summits should be held in Brussels for instance, and without the usual police commando’s. This would give a better image of the EU to its population. Ironically, Berlusconi is the first one who will hold his summits in Brussels rather than in Rome, but this has nothing to do with his Europhilia, but because he wants to avoid the foreign press and media broadcasting the thousands of unsatisfied Italians who will be protesting against him.

Admitted, there’s still some work to do in the Union. But a stable and democratic Italy is a necessairy thing, not some small problem which we are discussing now because there’s not much else news around. Even Eurosceptics admit that Berlusconi is a problem for Europe, not just for the EU as an institution. Otherwise such a Eurosceptic magazine like The Economist wouldn’t have started an initiative like this.

Regards,
Ben

…

wow the “liberal democracy” rule is set in stone….talk about hypocricy…all this time you’re accusing the US of trying to mold other countries in our form of democracy? This is getting better everyday… :rolleyes:

Hand

Thanks for the clarification.

Geforce

I do know the EU and the UN are different.;)
Any way you seem to recognize the hazards of rotational leadership. It will be interesting to see how this gets worked out in the new EU. Perhaps you should just cut to the chase and make the French president the automatic president of the EU.:D Foreign policy would be snap. Just kidding

Regards

Sauron

Sauron, there is a difference between the EU and the UN. There’s no rule in the UN Charter which says members should be liberal democracies. It does say so in the current EU agreements, and will be written in the constitution. I don’t like the rotating president myself, apart from the fact that non-bonafide individuals like Berlusconi have to represent the whole Union, it’s also very expensive and brings many difficulties with it. We need a permanent president, something I thought Tony Blair could do untill he killed himself politically the past few months.

Originally posted by Sauron
Geforce

I may be mistaken, but hasn’t the French government also recently passed a law to protect the French president from prosecution while he/she is in office?

Wasn’t Mr Berlusconi simply responding in kind when he made the concentration camp guard remark. Were there not other members of the EU parliment who were making ignorant comments as well?

Mr Berlusconi was elected by the Italian voters and as I understand it is legally entitled to be the new President of the EU according to EU rules which provides for a rotational selection as I understand it. A rule not to different in consequence to that in the UN which for example, allows countries like Iraq, Cuba, Iran, Libya, etc to assume the Chair of the UN council on human rights, based on where they stand in the alphabet. A process which you and others here defended as fair and just when we discused that issue a while ago. Seems like a good idea until someone you don’t like gets the job.

Sauron

It’s not a law passed by the governement Sauron , but the “conseil contitutionnel” which is sort of equivalant to the supreme court in the US who stated that according to the constitution , nobody can sue the president while he is in charge.

This is highly questionable and it piss*s me off.

Geforce

I may be mistaken, but hasn’t the French government also recently passed a law to protect the French president from prosecution while he/she is in office?

Wasn’t Mr Berlusconi simply responding in kind when he made the concentration camp guard remark. Were there not other members of the EU parliment who were making ignorant comments as well?

Mr Berlusconi was elected by the Italian voters and as I understand it is legally entitled to be the new President of the EU according to EU rules which provides for a rotational selection as I understand it. A rule not to different in consequence to that in the UN which for example, allows countries like Iraq, Cuba, Iran, Libya, etc to assume the Chair of the UN council on human rights, based on where they stand in the alphabet. A process which you and others here defended as fair and just when we discused that issue a while ago. Seems like a good idea until someone you don’t like gets the job.

Sauron

Originally posted by Geforce
And USAgent, can you please define socialist liberals? I really want to know what this means. AFAIK socialism and liberalism are like, the opposite. Ofcourse I can be wrong. Please help me figure it out, so you can add it to the dictionary next year.

Okay, I’ll give it a try, here’s my definition…

Those who prefer a society based on a belief that ‘social ownership’ of the means of production is desirable and can be achieved by voluntary and peaceful surrender of a persons holdings to the greater community, mixed with a ‘liberal philosophy’ based on a belief that the essential goodness of the human race directly conflicts with open competition and that having both simultaneously is not achievable.

Iraq was not a democracy. Vortex, you damn well know what I’m talking about, so don’t come with these cheap arguments. I know you’re smart enough to see the difference between Italy and Iraq. Wouldn’t you be worried if a semi-dictator takes over Canada? I’m not going to waste my time trying to explain the difference between Iraq and Italy, because I know you know it probably better than me.

And USAgent, can you please define socialist liberals? I really want to know what this means. AFAIK socialism and liberalism are like, the opposite. Ofcourse I can be wrong. Please help me figure it out, so you can add it to the dictionary next year.

Vortex

I guess since Saddam (Iraq) is not a member of the EU, the socialist liberals on that continent didn’t seem him as a threat like Berlusconi (Italy), thus not requiring any action on their part.

:rolleyes: