Ok, so the bill has passed. What happens now?
It’s funny to see Senators debating 60 as the retirement age when most of them hover at around 90.
Nope bill isnt passed, part of the legislative process involves the bill going back to the Assembly now that it has been voted by the Senate (that’s the role of the Senate in France, a crumbling assembly just there to make sure the Assembly doesnt do anything too hasty). Vote is on next Tuesday, expect big strikes and demos that day. Anyone that has to cross Europe to do open heart surgeries or find a cure for Aids will be thwarted again in their endeavours by those idling gaseous beings known as the French ATCs (dont ask).
I’m actually aware of the Single European Sky initiative and I believe that it makes a vast amount of sense, especially in light of the volcano kerfuffle and the ever increasing demands on pan-European airspace.
EuroControl is also a very useful body that I believe enhances safety for all travelling through European airspace. But the fact remains that the former hasn’t been implemented yet and the latter is an administrative body which may be useful in advising the French Govt. about safety problems if they ask but there is no way for them to exercise pressure on France.
If you still believe that there is an EU body with a role in interfering in this situation (The Parliament is free to make speeches) I’m going to have to ask you to point them out, show me under what legal or political authority they can act and then tell me what actions they can take that would have any affect.
SES and Eurocontrol are not enough, and I think its pretty clear by now that there is no basis for the EU to act in this situation.
Hey, at least *someone’s *working in France.
Well they are certainly fouling their own nest, but I doubt 100 million pounds a day sums it up if you include long term damages. Way to handle an international crises France. (French industry ‘losing at least £100 million a day’)
When the Spanish air controllers went on strike in 2009, Ryanair suggested to the EU Commissionaire of Transportation that it dissolve the national monopoly of the air controllers, and controllers from neighboring countries be brought in to carry on the work.
I’ve already said in my previous post that while I am aware that SES has not been implemented yet, I still think it would give sufficient leverage to pressure France, since the french government has signed up to the regulations and is supposed to be in the process of implementing them.
If you disagree, then fine. I’m not going to engage in “Could not!” “Could too!” debate because this is all besides the point anyway.
I wouldn’t say its beside the point. It’s true that there are two simultaneous debates going on in this thread but all I have ever discussed is the role of the EU. I am attempting to demonstrate to** Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party** and whoever else feels inclined to agree with him that their anger is misplaced, the EU is not acting because it is not empowered to legitimately act. Especially as the OP recommended
You call it a “could not, could too” debate but what else could it be? We’re discussing whether the EU could somehow pressure France, those are pretty much the only options. Yes or no.
Maybe we could try another direction though, if as you argue, that the SES gives the capability to act, why do you think they have they not done so? And if you decry this as simply speculation then what do you think we have been discussing this whole time?
Many spokespeople for the various groups have pledged to keep the fight going even if the bill passed. Whether it’s all talk or not, your guess is as good as mine. The government is certainly banking on people going “Oh. Well.” and going home, especially now that we’re officially on school holidays for 2 weeks.
The CRS have been paragons of work ethic as well 
Well, the first thing to say, I guess, is that the whole thing about the EU that I keep calling a tangent, is perhaps the OP.
The OP rants about the protesters, and then says what the EU should do… If there’s a debate here, it’s about the role of the EU.
So it’s a fair cop: I’m the one hijacking by trying to steer the debate more towards the protests themselves.
But:
Well, we’re discussing whether the EU should do something. It’s a subtle difference here, granted. Personally I’ve shyed away from making claims about what could be done, since I don’t understand the process that well, and frankly, I’m not sure anyone else in this thread does.
All I’ll say is that I have a suspicion that if a member state is doing something that affects several other members negatively, that there exist the means to apply pressure.
Well, there are lots of potential reasons:
There may be factors to consider that we are unaware of that make the shifting of ATC responsabilities impossible or unwise.
Perhaps they are thrashing out plans with france, but they take time and/or they don’t want to publicly announce the plans at this time.
Perhaps foreign governments are unaware of the damage that the strikes are having on their industry.
Perhaps we have overstated this damage in this thread.
Perhaps other countries have taken over ATC duties (after all, I’m not seeing big headlines about delays yet).
etc etc
So at least we’re having the same debate now 
Here is the interesting bit, and I think where we disagree. The means to apply pressure surely does exist, but my argument is that the EU is not the right instrument to do this. Any such pressure would have to come from member states who can engage in that level of diplomacy. Do you see my point?
Now I don’t think any of them ever would, because that would then legitimate others getting involved the next time they have internal problems, but I would acknowledge the means.
This is undoubtedly true, any disruption has been minor and already adapted to by the airlines - which makes your arguement of should even weaker, why should the EU or the member states interfere in something that only slightly affects them. Especially with the potential downsides. Plus if it’s happened 5x before they have lots of coping practice!
Considering the OP never shook off his lazyness (note how I didnt say idleness) to actually substantiate his claims with anything more than his self-righteousness and Victorian era Francophobia, this thread shouldnt even be in GDs, it belongs to the Pit. There’s no debate here, just rants.
I think the key word there would be suggested.
As long as those nations are soverign, suggestions are all you are going to get. Otherwise, you run the risk of those same soverign nations pulling out of arrangements like the EU. I don’t doubt that anyone would really care about Greece , all of a sudden , pulling out of the EU. But France was one of the anchor nations, you may run the risk of winning the battle, but losing the war by France pulling out of the EU, if Brussels had both the jurisdiction and the abiliity to impose a diktat.
declan
So I’m actually kind of confused about what is going on in France.
I understand a few things, like for example that the government is very unpopular. Okay, I get that.
However, I have a series of questions that if I could get simple answers to I think I’d understand the situation better (and shockingly to me, this stuff isn’t easily found via Google.):
-
True or false, France is facing a budgetary crisis and its projected expenses are going to far outstrip its projected government receipts (income?)
-
True or false, France needs to make some sort of change to avoid serious budgetary woes down the line, either by reducing expenses or increasing revenue? (Increasing revenue meaning increased taxation)
-
True or false, increasing the retirement age will help ease the budgetary problems France faces?
-
True or false, there are other steps the French government can take aside from raising the retirement age that might help fix their budgetary problems, if true, what steps?
-
True or false, other solutions have been suggested by the opposition and ignored by the government, or explored by the government and found untenable?
-
True or false, a different government (i.e. different political party) running France would be faced with the same budgetary issues and would need to make a decision about what to change just as this government has?
For anyone who can’t tell what I’m hoping to get at through this series of questions is this: Is the current legislation an attempt by conservatives to dismantle part of the welfare state just because they want to do it, or it is a legitimate fact that the French state has to cut back on the welfare state to remain fiscally viable long term. Are the riots just simply rage at the fact that France is headed for fiscal trouble and the French people have to change their lifestyle to continue being a viable state, or do the rioters have alternative solutions or do the rioters believe the fiscal problems are being exaggerated? Are the fiscal problems being exaggerated to justify changes that are unnecessary?
True and false. Yes, France is accruing more public debt over time, but then so does every first world country. True, the current pension system doesn’t sustain itself and needs cash injections from other sources to break even. Has been the case for decades.
Whether these cash injections are “far outstripping France’s projected government income”, however, is much less of a sure thing - as evidenced by the fact the selfsame MPs who are pushing the pension bill are at the same time trying to abolish the wealth tax and slashing regular taxes on the upper brackets.
Judging from the two facts put side by side, from my point of view the reform is really more about redistribution of the fiscal burden than money generation, no ?
See above.
That’s the big question, the answer to which depends on who you ask. Obviously, assuming a flat life expectancy, people retiring later means a) fewer people retiring or reaching the age at which they draw a pension, b) retired people get less pension money out of the system before they kick it and c) people will, over the course of their lives, and assuming they started working at the same age, put more money into the system.
However, while they’re not retiring, they’re also hogging jobs which would otherwise trickle down to the youth, thus worsening the youth unemployment problem, thus costing State money in unemployment benefits and similar welfare systems at the other end. As well as skewing the “assuming they started working at the same age” part of the equation above.
And then there’s the inherent issues of a greying workforce - do we really want 60+ year old bus drivers, teachers, steel mill operators, truckers, etc… ? Not that it would happen of course - in real life, they’ll be the ones fired first, won’t be able to find new employment, thus won’t be able to draw a full nevermind livable pension, and what then ? Fuck 'em ? Well, I suppose that works too…
But when all is said and done, on balance I’m going to go with True. Stiffing Gramps would help the economy.
Well, there’s always many different ways to raise money and or reduce spending, isn’t there ? The only problem is reaching a consensus on which ones to pick.
To me, reducing military funding’s a big glaring one (what the fuck do we need with an aircraft carrier, anyway ?), but more marginally and anecdotically, reintroducing the “vignette” could be a thing (a tax on owning a car, which had been originally levied to fund building the highways IIRC, then was kept around for years because hey, free money, then finally discontinued to garner public approval). I’m really not up to speed on this aspect of the question though.
All I know is : within the bounds of our current system, our total debt was stable and below the EU threshold between 96 and 2004, while a left wing admin was at the helm. It even dropped slightly between 99 and 02. Now that all branches of the government are firmly held by the right, debt’s rising extremely fast and it’s the welfare system that’s the problem ? Hmmm…
True. That’s one of the cruxes of the rage - the party in power has not proposed, nor explored, nor been amenable to any discussion on other possible solutions. They’re being extremely unilateral about this.
Probably true. Then again, as I said before the previous government didn’t seem to have too many problems keeping debt in check. Has France’s financial and fiscal landscape changed so drastically over the last 5 years ? Doubt it, but if someone has a cite to that extent, I’m all ears.
See answer to 1). Again, I’m not super aware or informed, but from my cursory reading, it is a case of because they want to use this option and no other. Or rather because they currently have the President and House majority to do it, whereas with their current popularity ratings and general track record of incompetence and corruption it’s doubtful the option will remain on the table much longer. Especially without having to introduce alterations, compromises or alternatives. Hence all the rushing and bullying.
Rioters and opposition have in fact proposed alternative solutions, which the Prime Minister has dismissed off-handedly and called “fraudulent” on air. The left wing MPs have also called for at least delays in the procedure, to let the unrest die down and rational, well tought-out discussions to take place anew. They have been completely ignored - in fact the votes have been pushed more and more up schedule.
I don’t think many of the protesters believe the fiscal problems to be inexistent or exaggerated - merely that they do not warrant such a rash and drastic move. A move that they also consider unfair, in that it impacts the working class so much more heavily than it does the wealthy. IOW, they think there’s other ways to skin this cat, and we should maybe cool it down and figure them out.
But even if the proposed cat-flaying method *was *absolutely warranted, it would have been nice to have had a discussion about it to reach that conclusion, rather than speeches to the extent of “shut the fuck up, we’ll do it our way and you’ll do as you’re told, nobody cares what you think anyway”. I sincerely doubt the situation would have degenerated so thoroughly had the government been the least bit clever or tactful. It’s like politics 101 - when you push an unpopular measure by unpopular means, by all the gods don’t be a smug douche about it.
Thanks for your answers Kobal2 but unfortunately they just seem to be your opinions. That’s sort of the problem, I’ve read some opinion articles out there (this situation isn’t getting a ton of attention in the States but I’ve read the few articles that have covered it), and they obviously take different positions one way or the other. What I’ve found so confusing about this is I can’t find, through a simple Google search, “real” fiscal information about France’s situation. All I can find are articles in which one person says “it’s real bad and things need to change” and others in which people say “well, it’s pretty bad but we shouldn’t be raising the retirement age.” Here in the United States it is a matter of law that any citizen should be able to go to a government website and see detailed information about the budget of the United States. I doubt many citizens do (I have), what I’ve found so strange is I can’t find real, unbiased/apolitical information about France’s fiscal situation.
Yep, just keep telling yourself your strikes don’t have any effect outside of France. One airline, Ryanair, canceled 200 flights in one day. The standard plane they operate is a 737-800, which carries around 189 people. Supposing a conservative estimate of 85% capacity on all their flights (and in my experience, that’s pretty conservative for Ryanair), we’re talking over 30,000 people inconvenienced with one airline alone. So how many weddings do you think you ruined?
Nobody cares what “les” means in French, or any other French word for that matter. “Les Miserables” is the title of a book and musical. It’s entirely standard to say “the La Brea tar pits” or the Les Miserables when writing in English, more so when allusion to the book of the same name is implied through capitalisation. What isn’t standard is placing a space before and after a colon.
It is not standard to add a definite article before the title of a book or musical, whether or not an article is included in the title, except for certain ancient texts where the article is a matter of convention (the Republic, the Analects). You don’t say “the Paradise Lost” or “the RENT,” let alone “the The Phantom of the Opera,” so you don’t say “the Les Miserables,” or “the Die Zauberfloete,” for that matter.
None of these usages are even remotely similar to my usage of Les Miserables. Go back and read my post. We’re not in a literary discussion. The use of Les Miserables as a title of a book was used as a stand-in for the French strikers.
I’ve never seen “the Les Miserables” before this thread.
Well, there is a similar website in France. Unsuprisingly, it’s exclusively available in French. If you want to have a crack at it, it’s here, with the specific number sheets there. Monthly spending breakdown, too.
I could also point you to less arcane articles similar to this one , where a member of the main opposition party goes over the problems with the proposed bill, including hashing the numbers over, assessing the relative bogosity of official predictions, fairness concerns and so forth as well as offering different paths & arguments. (barely intelligible google translation here, if you’re feeling courageous). Or similar pieces from the opposite end of the political spectrum, if you want. But they’d all be in French as well.
I guess we’re the only ones interested in the specifics, for some reason 
But if you wish, I’ll try the numbers talk, no matter how impenetrable economics (nevermind fiscality) are to me.
The general lay of the land looks to be thus : pensions cost us around 50 net billion euros a year, out of a total ~270 €bn tax intake. Not a negligible chunk of change, that is agreed. The yearly budget deficit had been stagnating for a while around 45 €bn until 2005, but steadily increased up to 65 €bn in 2008, and a 138 €bn spike in 2009 under the combined action of the financial crisis, the stimulus plan to deal with it and tax cuts.
The government promises their new pension plan would bring in an additional 20 €bn a year by 2018, which by their projections would make the whole of the SS debt vanish by 2020-2030… somehow.
Problem is, not only does this figure turn out to be based on the assumption that the economy will be going great by then and the unemployment arm of SS will be making a big profit (ho-hum), but up to 40% of that magic debt filling 20 billion flux seems to ultimately come from “exceptionnal funding by the State”. Just like now, then, only in a different column.
They don’t project any change in spending on unemployment benefits and similar welfare programs for all the now un-pensioned but not necessarily employed old either. Finally, there are also concerns that the program wouldn’t fare so well beyond 2020, after which it’d become as unsustainable as the current one considering demographic data and we’d basically end up facing the exact same crisis around 2050.
Mind you, that’s all without even factoring the flat ~3.5 billion tax cut on the extra-wealthy that would result from the proposed abolition of the “great wealth” tax. Or the amounts of money currently being shovelled into the economic stimulus plan, which at 110+ €bn a year weighs a tad more heavily than welfare on the budget, for as questionable results as the American one.
Buuut let’s cut them some slack and assume their bill does just what they claim, raises a brand new 20 billion flux no questions asked and solves the problem indefinitely.
For their part, the opposition and unions would want a) a short term tax hike to cover the immediate debt spike and keep the country at EU-compliant financial levels and b) a complete redesign of the pension system from the ground up - basing the retirement age* not on a flat, well, age but a number of work years one’d have to put into the system to be eligible for a pension (meaning you wouldn’t get “free” years for higher/longer education anymore), as well as making pensions themselves more equal across the board : decreasing the disparities between high and low pensions, men and women, cutting down the more outrageous pension brackets etc…
It’s a left-wing approach, certainly. It would mean the upper class would fare worse than it does now : they’d pay & work a bit more but get less in return ; while the working & what’s left of the middle class would carry on more or less unchanged save for a couple more years of work.
And the proposed bill is a right wing approach, where the poor would carry most of the weight as they’d need to work up to 7 more years to get the same pension as they get today (if that), while the middle class and the rich carry on as before.
A reform is inevitable. Both proposed schemes seem to me to make equal sense (or lack thereof) in strictly financial terms. Thus, which one seems fair or sensible to you or anybody is ultimately a matter of opinion, philosophy and politics. But clearly, this is something the whole country should get a real say in, as it will affect everyone’s life for a good long while.
And even more clearly, the proles don’t appreciate getting railroaded into a sandpaper rogering. At least wine&dine them first :p.
- also pushed back a couple years in practice. Ain’t no such thing as a free [del]lunch[/del]increase in life expectancy.