Germany and France are struggling with a new world

[RogueTrooper]

To spend a few days in Germany is not just to visit another country but, increasingly for a Briton, to visit a different kind of country. In Berlin last week, what stood out was how attractively stable modern Germany still is. Here were the material prosperity, the reliable services and the well-maintained environment that most people want from life. Lack of excitement - and 5 million people out of work - almost seems a small price to pay for such a good common life, especially after the kind of 20th century Germany had.

Article continues
The contrast with Britain is unmissable. Here, the reality of economic dynamism is all around us, sometimes for good, as in our high levels of employment, but also sometimes for ill, as in our high levels of stress and insecurity. Our private affluence is high, our public goods and spaces are improving, but they do not match those of Germany. Our public life is far less restrained than theirs. If Tony Blair wants to find that elusive culture of respect, all he needs to do is go to Berlin.

For a long time many on the progressive left looked to Germany as the kind of country that they wished Britain could become - industrious, civilised and moderate. To its regulars, the British-German Königswinter conference, which I attended last week, was a place where senior British public figures came to learn from the achievements of their German counterparts - to learn how a modern social democratic party worked, how a dynamic economy could be married to a generous welfare state, and how a strong national identity could meld seamlessly with the European project.

Now, the boot is on the other foot. Now it is the Germans who arrive at Königswinter aware that they have not got it as right as they once assumed. In the old days it was the Germans who had the economic miracle and who wore the badge of modernity. Now, in a more haphazard way, it is the British. Germans talk anxiously about being in denial about the price they are increasingly paying for their apparently stable good society.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1490868,00.html

There seems to be a lot of European news in the Guardian today.

[Taxloss]

1. As there should be.

Now, more than ever, it is vitally important. The Debate is about to start.

[T_i_B]

2. "There seems to be a lot of European news"

Well we do have the referendums in France and the Netherlands about the EU constitution soon! That's the main reason why there seems to be more EU news then usual.

[Kellanved]

3. Well, I don't think the contrast is that big.

What Kettle misses: unlike the British economy in London, the German economy is hardly present in Berlin. All I can say: the described stability simply doesn't exist for my generation.

The UK got a lot of investments simply by offering a haven for funds fleeing the continent in the late 90s; that stream of money is dwindling. I believe Blair will face challenges, not totally unlike those found in continental Europe today, over the next few years (again, plus the housing bubble etc.). I refuse to believe that Thatcherism can be the answer.

[RogueTrooper]

4. No, the stability probably does not

for your generation. I would guess that the 10% unemployment is skewed more in the direction of your generation too.

[Kellanved]

5. not really

It is worst for the 35-50 year olds. I.e. one generation before mine.

[aneerkoinos]

6. Kettle is Blairite-Thatcherite neocon

Yup, let's surrender to this globalization thingie, give up labour & other social rights and become all Corporistans a la Murika.

No, I say let's go socialist. Let's start nationalizing.

[RogueTrooper]

7. What is with the ad-hominem attacks on Martin Kettle

can't people just disagree with what he said without resulting to personal abuse ( there are two cases on this thread ).

It does not strengthen your case.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Two cases? I can only see one

(the one you replied to). Kellanved just said that Kettle missed something - ie disagreeing with what he said.

[aneerkoinos]

11. Abuse?

What I said is my honest impression of the ideology that mr. Kettle (and other neoliberal/neoconservative former social democrats, now defeatists) bases his opinions on, if you think calling out one's ideology is an ad-hominem, so be it. And needles to say I don't agree with that ideology.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. What specific bits of the constitution would you take out?

Or what would you put in, with a reasonable expectation of the whole EU ratifying the new version? If we didn't ratify the constitution, and settled for the status quo, what do you think would be better for labour and social rights? Or are you just saying the EU should be broken up, for the good of each country?

[RogueTrooper]

10. are those questions directed at me?

[aneerkoinos]

12. Moi?

If so, on this occasion I'm not discussing the details of the so called constitution, but left's responses to globalization. I call Blairism and Third Way defeatism, support of unreigned capitalism, allience with neoliberalism aka neoconservatism, and hope that there are still some real socialists left, because socialism is very likely the only way to survive, ie. succeed in soft landing to post-carbon society.

Just a short comment on constitution, it would be nice if EU would have jurisdiction to legislate also on the social area (European minimum wage, minimum tax etc.).

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Ah, my fault, I'm tending to concentrate on the constitution

in European discussion these past few days. Since many (on the left, anyway) who oppose the constitution also talk about social and labour rights (but in a rather fuzzy way) as being their objection to the constitution, I leapt to the conclusion that you were making an anti-constitution argument - and I always try to get a more specific reasoning from such people.

Your position is fair enough - I wouldn't call Kettle neoconservative (I think he's always been against the Iraq invasion, for instance), but he does look more favourably on globalization - as, I'm afraid, I do. I think we should be able to get some international agreements on environmental issues (Bush and his regime are the biggest obstacle to this - I'm half tempted to say 'globalize except for the US', who we should boycott until they get rid of the neocons), and that, with those in place, fair international trade will be good for developing countries, and neutral for us in the developed world (our economies may stop growing, but they have to for the environment's sake anyway; and we can't expect to get cheap imports from developing countries forever).

[aneerkoinos]

14. Globalization

I'm not anti-globalization, au contraire, I'm internationalist green socialist. Thus I'm anti-capitalist and against globalization in the meaning of capitalistic imperialism aka global corporatocracy.

As for neocons, neolibruls, blairites, revisionists etc., they are just different shades of minions of global corporatocracy, I don't see any real difference between them. They are all building a society dependent of eternal material growth and cannot think beyond, which bodes high likelihood of total destruction of our civilization, if that ideology of growth keeps running rampant.

Here in Finland it seems we don't get a referendum on the constitution, so I don't have to make up my mind. I have my likes and dislikes in the treaty, and if I could vote on it, I would still belong to the undecided.