HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dennis@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de (Dennis Schulze)
Subject: Re: East Germany
Organization: ZRZ/TU-Berlin
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:14:46 GMT

In <Bw82ro.9Fv@wm.estec.esa.nl> joleary@ESTER9 (John O'Leary) writes:

>This is true in theory.  But there are still huge differences between West and
>East Germany, so it is useful to use the terms East and West Germany. 
>(Though Germans usually refer to East Germany as the "Former DDR", possibly
>because that is what their government told them to call it.)

I'm sorry but you are wrong with that:
1. The German government doesn't tell the people how to call certain things.
2. The term 'former GDR' is more avoided and 'neue Bundeslaender' (new
'States') is prefered.

I agree that there are (still) many differences between West and East but
aren't there differences between North and South France and East and West
Poland for example? So what is the problem with that?

Dennis
p.s.: I guess it would be better to continue this discussion in a different
newsgroup or via email because it has not a lot of to do with politics of
the ec, eh?
---
Dennis Schulze                               Free University of Berlin
Johannisthaler Ch. 361                       Department of Meteorology
W - 1000 Berlin 47                       dennis@metw3.met.fu-berlin.de
Germany                               dennis@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: abraham@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen)
Subject: Re: [soc.culture.nordic] Re: Why did Denmark
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University
	<1992Oct7.192432.10724@eua.ericsson.se>
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:18:06


>>>>> On Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:24:32 GMT, etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter
>>>>> Lund) said:

Peter> Non EC members will never be given the possibility to choose
Peter> between the EC and the EU. This privilege is only given to the
Peter> present EC members, like Denmark.  Other Scandinavian countries
Peter> like Sweden, will only be given the choise between a full
Peter> membership or staying outside EC.

Hopefully, this will not be the case.  One proposed solution to the
Danish (and French, and German, and British) problem will be a
multi-level EC, where different countries participate in different
areas.

Peter> If Sweden chooses to stay outside and only participate in EEA
Peter> (European Economic Area), which gives the EFTA countries access
Peter> to the single market, Sweden will be forced to closely follow
Peter> all economic decisions taken in Brussells, without having any
Peter> say when those decisions are taken.

Correct.  Sweden is already better integrated in the EEA than any EC
members, except maybe Denmark and GB.

Peter> This way, Sweden will become an economic satellite state to the
Peter> EC. The democracy for the Swedish voters will be reduced to
Peter> only those few questions Brussels doesn't think have to do with
Peter> implementing the single market. The only democratically ac-
Peter> ceptable solution for the Swedish democracy is to join EC,
Peter> whether Maastricht is implemented or not.

Joining Maastricht will not help, since all important decisions will
be taken at closed meetings.  Do you believe that your elected
politicians will always take the best possible decisions for you -
even though you have no way to control them.

Peter> I hope the Swedish people realise this well in time for our
Peter> referendum, planned to the autumn -94. However, I'm not sure
Peter> they will. If not, I'm confident, they will realise this after
Peter> a few years.

I hope the Swedish people will never be forced into that choice.
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Date: 10 Oct 92 20:25:15 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Peter Lund (etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se) writes:
>If the conditions I stated above, are fulfilled, the government
>starting the war has first to be able to explain the reasons for
>the population. The same population that has to fight the war,
>the government starts. If the reasons aren't good enough, the
>people will not approve, and the government would know that they
>will loose the next election. This is why I'm that sure about the
>fact, that wars between "well functioning" democracies are IMPOSSIBLE.

But if the peoples want to war each other? And, unfortunately
this is not a theoretical question, but is one of the explanations
why warlords as Tudjman and Milosevic not only gets elected but
also re-relected. (OK, Milosevic is not re-elected. Yet.)

Sure in a previous paragraph you disqualified Eastern Europe
from being well-functioning democracies. However I have the
feeling that part of the "well-functioning" democracy is
that it does not go to war.

When one throws around propaganda cliches like "democracies
don't war with each other", one should know that the sample
over time and place is too small. The world of democratic
tradition, coincides with the Protestant/Catholic world, which
is a world which have a long common tradition of culture,
despite many wars, which simplifies the understanding between
these countries.

Really what happens when democracy extends to the Orthodox or
the Muslim world, we don't know, but we've seen scary examples
when the different cultures clash on the old border between East 
and West Rome.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
There are many sorts of Macedonians: Greek, Bulgarian, Roumanian, Macedonian...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund)
Subject: Re: [soc.culture.nordic] Re: Why did Denmark
Reply-To: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:24:32 GMT

In article 1@sejnet.sunet.se, eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas) writes:

>                                     While the scandinavian governments have
>stated their desire to join the EC, it is totally unclear whether the people
>would approve such a decision, and one thing that is CERTAINLY not a given is
>that Maastricht would pass in other scandinavian countries! There is no way on
>earth a neutral country can approve a treaty which calls for a common army and
>common foreign affairs policy as a matter of routine.

Non EC members will never be given the possibility to choose between the EC and 
the EU. This privilege is only given to the present EC members, like Denmark. 
Other Scandinavian countries like Sweden, will only be given the choise between 
a full membership or staying outside EC. 

If Sweden chooses to stay outside and only participate in EEA (European Economic 
Area), which gives the EFTA countries access to the single market, Sweden will be
forced to closely follow all economic decisions taken in Brussells, without having 
any say when those decisions are taken. 

This way, Sweden will become an economic satellite state to the EC. The democracy
for the Swedish voters will be reduced to only those few questions Brussels doesn't 
think have to do with implementing the single market. The only democratically ac-
ceptable solution for the Swedish democracy is to join EC, whether Maastricht is 
implemented or not.

I hope the Swedish people realise this well in time for our referendum, planned 
to the autumn -94. However, I'm not sure they will. If not, I'm confident, they will 
realise this after a few years.

Peter Lund, 	mail: Peter.Lund@eua.ericsson.se
Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Date: 8 Oct 1992 20:44:15 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct8.161511.24290@eua.ericsson.se>, etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund) writes:
|> 
|> The point is not who the aggressor is. The point is, what the reasons
|> for wars usually are. Well functioning democracies always resolve their
|> arguments peacefully in negotiations, where they both respect the other
|> party's point of view. Trustful negotiations are usually very hard 
|> to get with a less democratically functioning party.

You mean the way that the US respected the Canadian point of view in
1812?   The way the US respected the Mexican point of view?   The
way the US respected the Nicaraguan point of view in - what was it - 
thirteen invasions?   The way the US respected the Colombian point
of view when it partitioned that country to create the Republic of
Panama in order to construct the Panama Canal?     The way the US
respected the Hawaiian point of view when it annexed the islands?

Or are you saying that the US isn't a "well functioning democracy"?

By the way, what is a "well functioning" democracy anyway?   The
modifier "well functioning" sounds to me like a phrase that you
can redefine any way you like to prove your point.   Or perhaps
it has a recognised definition?

jon. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: Peter.Gorny@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Peter Gorny)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:37:01 GMT

eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas) writes:

>In article <mikael.69.718474872@udac.uu.se>, mikael@udac.uu.se (Mikael Lundgren) writes:
>> I seem to remember something about the german constitution blocking the 
>> possibility of a referendum in Germany. Maybe someone could shed some light 
>> on this ??

>Well, the constitution did not seem to be an obstacle to Maastricht itself, so
>it shouldn't be an obstacle to a referendum on Maastricht ;-)
Correct. The German constitution has no provision for a referendum. (The reason
is historic: in 1948/49 the authors of the Grundgesetz tried to avoid 
                        "direct democracy"
in favor of             "representative democracy" 
on the background of the experiences of the Weimar republic (1918 - 1933 
plus 12 years of Hitler), where the direct democracy provisions in the 
constitution were used by the extreme right and left wing parties to weaken 
the democratic system.)

The German constitution has some articles, which might need an amendment to
regulate some parts of the Maastrich treaty, but since the major parties
CDU/CSU, FDP and SPD agree on most of the points, the needed 2/3-majority is not
a problem....

Peter

Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: defee@tukkasotka.tut.fi (Irek Defee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Neutrality?
Date: 8 Oct 1992 06:31:29 GMT
Organization: Tampere University of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: tukkasotka.cs.tut.fi

In article <1992Oct7.175947.1@sejnet.sunet.se> ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE writes:

>The Danes don't want a common army or a common foreign affairs policy, for
>instance. They don't want it today, and they won't want it even if they are
>given 2 more years than the others to implement it. The bottom line is that the
>treaty was simply not designed to reflect the requirements of neutral
>countries. 

That is really ridiculous: being faithful member of NATO, Denmark was for
40+ ys  already a part of common foreign policy, and well-integrated into
military structures led in fact by the US. There was no objection to this
since that was a convenient umbrella kept by the big guys. Another point is
that macroeconomic policy of Denmark is already in strict tune with that of
Germany. 

I think that the position of Danes is simply getting maximum gains with 
minimum obligations. If everybody thinks this way, Europe will obviously
break into quarreling pieces.

>  Eric

Irek

Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund)
Subject: European Army?
Reply-To: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:37:47 GMT

In article 718567802@udac.uu.se, mikael@udac.uu.se (Mikael Lundgren) writes:
>
>There are other assets that are worth protecting. Important seaways, 
>important sources of natural resources are two examples. There may be 
>situations where the US might decide that some asset is not of great 
>importance to them, while Europe might look at it in a completely different 
>manner. The question is, should Europe base its policy on what the US may or 
>may not want to do?

No, Europe ought to have its own policy and means to enforce it. Depending on
what kind of President that is in charge in the White House, the US may reduce 
its interests in Europe's security, democracy and stability. The general Ameri-
can opinion and the US President will as in all democracies vary.

Europe has always been politically instable, and the democratic forces in Euro-
pe have always needed external support to survive. When USA has failed to supply 
that support, Europe has also failed. To make Europe democratically independent, 
the political union has to be implemented. This would create stability in Europe, 
and thus also in the rest of the world.

>Granted, a European Army poses great problems, there have to be clear rules 
>for when, how, why and where such an army might be employed. A greater 
>democratic control of its use is imperative, this means that the EU will 
>have to build up a system of governement which is different from today (more 
>representation, a greater degree of democracy if you will).
>So, what I seem to be getting to is that a European army today is premature, 
>vital political infrastructures are missing.
>
>Maybe the best way for the unions treaty would be to drop (for the time 
>being) any references to a joint army and instead go for some kind of 
>alliance (WEU?) where member nations still have control over their own 
>armies. There is still room for joint forces such as the Franco-German 
>brigade, where nations may want to cooperate bilaterally.

I agree. An alliance is enough to achive the goals I mentioned above. The 
Councile of Ministers can make a foreign policy decision in the political 
union, but the ultimate decision to apply military force may still be the 
individual government's. This as long the European democracy isn't develo-
ped enough. NATO has been, is still, and will be vital for Europe's secu-
rity. Europe ought to be able to become one of two large pillars in this 
alliance.

Peter Lund, 	mail: Peter.Lund@eua.ericsson.se
Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden

Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: Raid <raid@halcyon.com>
Subject: Advantages for Spain Italy and France to be members of ec
Originator: bbs@halcyon.com
Keywords: Spain Italy France ec
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:40:49 GMT

        I would be intrested in diffrent view points as to the advantages
of Spain or Itlay or France joining the EC. I ask this question for my
Modern European History class. Thanks in advance for all and any replies.
js jsteinhu@nyx.cs.du.edu
From: ulfb@ulfb.nada.kth.se (Ulf Berggren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:53:12 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

In article <1992Oct10.202515.6711@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Peter Lund (etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se) writes:
>>If the conditions I stated above, are fulfilled, the government
>>starting the war has first to be able to explain the reasons for
>>the population. The same population that has to fight the war,
>>the government starts. If the reasons aren't good enough, the
>>people will not approve, and the government would know that they
>>will loose the next election. This is why I'm that sure about the
>>fact, that wars between "well functioning" democracies are IMPOSSIBLE.
>
>But if the peoples want to war each other? And, unfortunately
>this is not a theoretical question, but is one of the explanations
>why warlords as Tudjman and Milosevic not only gets elected but
>also re-relected. (OK, Milosevic is not re-elected. Yet.)

There is nothing that leads us to conclude that any of the former
east peoples want to war each other.
Many persons flee or skip military service, they don't want no war.
Tudjman won the election and not the war-wanting candidates.
Milosevic is not so popular anymore.
Sure, there are conflicts between peoples, but the problem is that
the people are not asked how to solve this conflicts. Instead some
politicians/idiot nationalists choose war.

>When one throws around propaganda cliches like "democracies
>don't war with each other", one should know that the sample
>over time and place is too small. The world of democratic
>tradition, coincides with the Protestant/Catholic world, which
>is a world which have a long common tradition of culture,
>despite many wars, which simplifies the understanding between
>these countries.
Like Japan?

>
>Really what happens when democracy extends to the Orthodox or
>the Muslim world, we don't know, but we've seen scary examples
>when the different cultures clash on the old border between East 
>and West Rome.

 A big problem is that Islam and democracy seem to be
unable to work together. Probably we soon have democracy everywhere
but in islamic countries. At the same time the western policy
towards these countries can make their peoples very anti-west.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund)
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Reply-To: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:50:34 GMT

In article 1b26ivINNkli@fido.asd.sgi.com, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>By the way, what is a "well functioning" democracy anyway?   The
>modifier "well functioning" sounds to me like a phrase that you
>can redefine any way you like to prove your point.   Or perhaps
>it has a recognised definition?

A well functioning democracy, is a country where firstly all basic 
democratic demands are satisfied, e.g. freedom of thought, speech 
and meeting. Regular elections a.s.o. 

But "well functioning" includes much more. A resonable educated 
population, a large and totally free press with a large flow of 
information that reaches >95% of the population, a long democratic 
tradition, free people that can afford to use their freedom and 
tolerance in the society.

With this definition, I guess no country would be labeled "a well 
functioning democracy" before this century started, now in the 
third world or in east Europe.

If the conditions I stated above, are fulfilled, the government 
starting the war has first to be able to explain the reasons for 
the population. The same population that has to fight the war, 
the government starts. If the reasons aren't good enough, the 
people will not approve, and the government would know that they 
will loose the next election. This is why I'm that sure about the 
fact, that wars between "well functioning" democracies are IMPOSSIBLE.

Peter Lund, 	mail: Peter.Lund@eua.ericsson.se
Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
From: ulfb@ulfb.nada.kth.se (Ulf Berggren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:37:25 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

In article <1992Oct4.185423.7633@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Peter Lund (etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se) writes:
>>A military union, consisting of countries with a long and strong democ-
>>ratic tradition, is something positive. In all wars in history, there
>>has always been at least one party in the conflict that has been a di-
>>catorship. Wars between democratic nations are impossible! (Try to find
>>a "democratic" war!)
>
>Simple. The governments and presidents of Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina
>and Serbia are democratically elected. True, none of them can be
>regarded full-grown democracies, but there are little too many demo-
>cratic features in these countries to write them off as dictator-
>ships. And, particularly: with democracy came the war.

Oh, a different news conference but the same debate and the same
opinions that we already have written in Swedish...
But strange that there are things that some people seem to never
learn.
So, I'll repeat myself: The war didn't come with democracy, it
came with regionalization before democracy.
>
>Another example to consider is the war which lead the secession
>of Bangala Desh which followed of the result in the parliamental
>elections in Pakistan which due to their democraticness lead to
>a majority for the more populous east half.

What point do you want to make here? The Pakistan regime didn't
accept the election results and the internal war began. Thus
Pakistan was no democracy when India intervened.

>
>One should also remember that there are several cases where the
>acts of war with a democracy on side where the democratic state
>has been the agressor. The Suez crisis 1956, the American invasion
>on Grenada 1983 are two examples.

Repetition again: The Suez crisis is not a good example since it
probably wouldn't have happened if Egypt had been a democracy.
From: abraham@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: European Democracy (was: Why did Denmark ...)
Date: 10 Oct 92 23:42:01 GMT
	<1992Oct8.164501.24723@eua.ericsson.se>
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University


>>>>> On Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:45:01 GMT, etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter
>>>>> Lund) said:

Peter> The EC's Council of Ministers is an inter-governmental board, where 
Peter> government, not countries, are represented. There you will never get 
Peter> democracy, open meetings or not. Not either here in Sweden, we do have 
Peter> open government meetings, so why should the Council of Ministers have 
Peter> open meetings? The power must move to the European Parliament before we 
Peter> can get true European democracy.

I agree.  Now, do you belive that it is wise to FIRST delegate large
amounts of power into a non-democratic institution and THEN think
about making the institution democratic?

I would personally feel more safe if the steps were swapped.
From: harmic@Physik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Michaela Harlander)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:47:17 GMT
Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany)

mikael@udac.uu.se (Mikael Lundgren) writes:

>In article <1992Oct7.175947.1@sejnet.sunet.se> eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas) writes:
>>From: eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas)
>>In article <mikael.69.718474872@udac.uu.se>, mikael@udac.uu.se (Mikael Lundgren) writes:
>>> I seem to remember something about the german constitution blocking the 
>>> possibility of a referendum in Germany. Maybe someone could shed some light 
>>> on this ??
>>
>>Well, the constitution did not seem to be an obstacle to Maastricht itself, so
>>it shouldn't be an obstacle to a referendum on Maastricht ;-)

>You may have a point there. Still, i'd like to hear from someone who knows 
>the fact so that we can stop guessing.

O.k, since you are asking for it :-)
German constitution does not allow a referendum, i.e. the possibility
of a referendum is mentioned nowhere in the Grundgesetz. There are
some states in Germany allowing a referendum (e.g. Bavaria does),
but these referenda are restricted to topics of local concern. 
Maastricht is definitely not a local topic :-)

       Michaela.

--
Michaela K. Harlander             harmic@physik.tu-muenchen.de
GeNUA Gesellschaft fuer Netzwerk- und UNIX- Administration mbH 
und Physik-Department TU Muenchen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec