 I've just watched her speech to congress live and was little surprised by the tone. She seemed to be speaking as much for Europe as she was for Germany. A very slick performance but I wasn't sure Merkel should be the one speaking for me. Lots of thanks to the US for beating the Nazis, saving Berlin, saving most of the country from communism and facilitating reunification then an outline of Germany's (and often Europe's) position on Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, climatic change, trade...... We have a new boss, are you happy with her? (and yes I would obviously before you ask DK)
|
 |
 mmm, not sure... isn't she labelled as Germanys 'Thatcher'...
|
|
Can't think why she would be. Her style is concensus rather than confrontation.
|
|
 I think that the current German political system would prevent one party from from having total control to push through an extreme ideology, as is very possible in the UK. Also while the Germans are very socially conservative, the general political view is to the left of the UK where IMO people seem to vote to the right of their political and social views, something I usually put down to the influence of the media.
|
|
__________.jpg) I know very little about her, but the stuff I have read suggests she's very competant (and popular). I don't like the idea of a European president though.
|
|
 I'm not sure of the point of a European president will this be someone with absolute power over the EU or a mere figurehead in the style of the German president?
|
|
I believe it's going to be a figurehead... Anywhere at least Tory Blair was pushed out the running.
|
|
 The whole Europe thing, one state etc was done a long time ago by Russia when it swallowed up its neighbouring states only for simmering nationalist feelings to finally erupt,what makes the EU think things are going to be better with its plan? In time the countries involved will want their own independence and sovereignty returned when they get sick of being led by people who are not their 'own'. I can't help but feel in time the same thing will happen to the EU as with the old USSR.
|
|
President implies 'state' - I don't think a single European state is a good idea - I think it's a very bad one. I'm a Euro-phile but it's going way too far.
|
|
Well there's a big difference between the USSR and the European Union. The European Union is not actually opressing any of the member states, and the member states get a say in what goes on ie. it's democratic. Also any member state can actually leave if they want without the need for bloodshed and having tanks roll in.
|
|
Maybe but countries like the UK have not given the electorate a choice to vote on whether we go into Europe or not,tanks or not there isn't much difference in ideology is there?
|
|
Well yes, one was Stalinism/Communism the other is Liberal Democracy.
|
|
I started the thread not as a criticism of European institutions but because Merkel seems to be adopting a role that isn't hers, hence "de facto". reunified Germany is by far Europe's most populace country and its industrial powerhouse. Financially, culturally and intellectually its role is increasingly important though London hangs on financially and France at least has an alternative socio-cultural approach. So after years of occupation west and east, and keeping its head down on the political and military front, Germany through Merkel is back in the limelight and speaking for the whole of Europe. Much as I like Germany, its people, its language and its culture I don't want to be lead or spoken for by her and I'd rather she were a little less chummy with a militarily aggressive American administration. And isn't it about time you asked the 70 000 US troops based in Germany to go home Angela? If the US insist on occupying countries wouldn't they be better employed in Afghanistan and Iraq thus allowing German units to return to defending German soil.
|
|
The Americans aren't the only nation to have bases in Germany. The UK has a base near Bielefeld I believe.
|
|
Yup 20 000 of 'em. For training purposes apparently. Laughable eh! When I worked for the NAAFI in Munster the roles were very clear: - play out any nasty battlefield nuclear war on German soil
- hold up the Russian tanks slightly on their trip to Cannes should they decide to visit
- occupy Germany
- remove any excuse for German rearmament
- provide a market for Asbach Uralt
Edit: I was there in 1980 so the roles have obviously changed a tad.
|
| Edited: 04/11/09 10:18 |
I don't think there are that many US troops still here John. There are still bases all over the place, but they are in decline, and the land is being taken back by the state. The airfield down the road from me is virtually deserted, and housing projects are being built on parts that used to be used for service accommodation. I believe that is the case with both the US and British forces here. Although there was a little panic last year when Russia was flexing its muscles.
|
|
|
|
|
#Googles it#
|
|
|
|
|
Yeh that was in 2007, I believe that the numbers have been reducing rapidly over the past few years, and wouldn't be surprised if it was between 40-50 000 now. I couldn't find any accurate recent figures, just going off what people I work with say about how its been changing in recent years. I think some of the towns made quite a lot of profit from the American dollar. Even around here where it was a relatively small contingent, home rental prices are high because landlords are used to the US forces and backup staff subsidising the market (when I first moved here I even had one landlord try adding another 150 euros to the price during a viewing because he thought I was something to do with the US military)..
|
|
