I don’t know how much tourism money is involved but at this point I would expect the industry to take a noticeable hit over this. Why would anyone plan a vacation to France in advance if they can’t be sure of basic infrastructure?
The other issue at stake here is the French credit rating. They are already reasonably close to losing AAA status and with an ever-increasing defecit and no public will for cuts of any kind how long is that going to last?
A French debt crisis could literally bring down the EU. The French government has to make cuts, and the Unions obstinate denial of this in the face of all the evidence is incredibly short-sighted.
Of course, it would help if Sarkozy wasn’t such a raging arsehole.
No. Last time the British ATCs threatened to strike (2002) the government stepped in and told the unions and their employers to get a deal sorted ASAP. The strike was averted.
If you’re looking for some sort of hypocrisy here on the part of the British, look again:
[ul]
[li]The British ATC services do not even threaten to strike as often as the French actually do strike.[/li][li]Britain isn’t in the same central location that France is in the EU. A British ATC strike doesn’t have the same detrimental effect on the common market that a French ATC strike does.[/li][/ul]
Careful. Talk of the government stepping in, and you know, stopping a strike when it gets out of hand is apparently akin to advocating Fascism. Everybody knows sending the police and/or military to stop a general strike is one of the many first steps to wiping out European Jewry.
Participation in the EU requires at least the surrendering of a small amount of sovereignty. Like I said: as a sovereign nation, is it legal under EU law for France to impose import tariffs on British goods? Similarly, you can harp on about sovereignty all you like, but when regular French ATC strikes are affecting the common market so often, it’s time for the EU to be laying down (or at least attempting to) a legal framework that prevents them. Similarly, I ask once again, can France as a sovereign nation that belongs to the EU, ban haulage from other EU nations from using their roads and force them to take a sea route? Why, why not?
If the French don’t like the fact that participation in the EU means getting their shit together internally, I’m sure they’re free to leave the EU and all the juicy CAP subsidies behind.
Damn, missed the edit window:
Nevertheless, I believe that the EU needs to lay down a framework that prevents ATC strikes from affecting the common market for all member states, including Britain. ATC strike that affects only domestic flights: fine. One that stops other EU aircraft from transiting your airspace: not fine.
So you believe the EU should force France to relinquish its air space to the Union cause it’s not that convenient for your travel plans. Well, I think stubbornly refusing to drive on the proper side of the road, or refusing to switch to non medieval measures like the meter or the Celsius degree is wrecking the gracious harmony of the EU, and surely,as you would agree with me, the EU should fall down on Britain for that.
I’m not even mentioning the refusal to use the Euro as the main currency, what kind of message is that sending? It is a very clear message, that of defiance to the EU, and those Frenches which are notoriously incapable of handling themselves, are only the first entry on the EU shit list.
Today, the EU’s Stormtroopers take over France, tomorrow it’s Britain. You should definitively check the EU’s Death Star.
Funny, this sudden sense of entitlement to France’s air space…The Victorian era has just called, they said they want you back.
Shouldn’t you be out on a picket or something?
Yeah, keep telling yourself it’s because of my travel plans. Why don’t you answer the question: can France ban EU haulage from its roads and force them to take sea routes? Why doesn’t the EU have a legitimate interest in regulating airspace which is vital to the functioning of the common market? Heaven knows, regulating in this capacity may actually be useful, as opposed to regulating in which units merchants may sell bananas.
But it’s not **France **that’s doing or would be doing these things. It’s French people, but it’s not the state and it’s pretty clearly against the express wishes of the state. The question is, in the event of industrial action/popular unrest that seriously impedes trade within Europe, who is responsible in the first instance for bringing the situation under control and how long do they have before the EU can step in and impose a solution?
I don’t think anyone would disagree that it’s absolutely the job of the French state and its government to deal with the situation in the first instance. But the problem of determining when they have failed to do so is much more difficult. Is it a financial value - once the cost of the disruption exceeds some amount then its legitimate for the EU to step in? What if, as in this case, there’s a series of separate actions - how frequent, over what period, marks out a case for intervention?
And then there’s the question of what exactly the EU can achieve. Let’s say the threshold is reached, and the EU declares that the action is now criminal. If we’ve reached the point where protesters are willing to take as drastic a step as shutting down haulage, will arrests and forcible disruption of the protest really bring matters to an end? Even if they now avoid protests with an international effect, has the EU just utterly screwed over the French government by incensing the populace? The EU and trade won’t benefit from a general collapse in confidence in France as a stable state. In the case of ATC, will forcing France to arrest controllers who won’t keep international air corridors open actually solve the problem? Or will it lead to further anti-EU protests and just escalate the situation?
In any case, you’re assuming that the EU’s solution to disrupted trade must be to force action against the strikers. It would equally well meet the EUs interest in free trade if it forced the government to accept the strikers’ demands. The strike would end pretty quickly and trade could continue uninterrupted. If that’s seems like unacceptable interference with the French government, why is forcing them to use civil and military force to end the strike any less so?
That’s rather disingenuous. There is considerable more involved than just that. When Denmark and Sweden in 2009 decided to join their small airspace, then it was estimated that it would result in annual saving of more than $60million and 52,000 tons of CO2 due to more direct flight routes. Forcing airlines to bypass French airspace should result in considerable larger waste of both money and CO2. Not that it changes the fact that France controls French airspace.
In addition, muddying the waters with talk of “sovereignty” is more self-serving disingenuous bullshit. The EU is a club. It has rules. Any member state can take their sovereignty at any time and tell the EU to go shove it. Me joining a golf club and agreeing to wear suitable atire on the course doesn’t affect the fact that I’m an ordinary citizen with rights otherwise. If I don’t like what I’m forced to wear, then I can leave and find another club. The EU setting up legal frameworks that clarify what exactly can affect ATC services isn’t a threat to sovereignty in the slightest.
The French military can keep the international routes through their airspace open until the strike subsides.
Well, OK but why aren’t they doing it now? It’s not out of sympathy with the strikers. It’s not because the French government want to disrupt trade in the EU. Presumably it’s either a) logistically difficult/impossible for reasons we don’t know or b) possible, but ultimately self-defeating for political/social reasons. (The alternative is that they just haven’t thought about it, but I find that a little unlikely.)
I mean, I’m prepared to believe in quite a high level of government incompetence, and not just from the French, but I also doubt that it’s quite so straightforward and consequence-free as you seem to imply.
As a general point, while we’re discussing what the EU can and cannot impose on it’s members, it’s worth remembering that they did make a credible threat of taking France to court over the expulsion of the Roma - a threat that was averted when France amended its immigration laws. However, the possibilty over a discrimination lawsuit is still open. What I take from this is that yes, the EU can impose itself on a country’s provision of access to its territory (going very broad here) but that that imposition takes the form of a lawsuit, not an imposition of higher power. In other words, you’re going to be waiting a while for the mill to grind.
I think you misunderstand my objection.
On this board, anyone can post about any event in the world. The idea that “it’s not your country, butt out” is anathema to this board.
I have a job interview in Germany in a few days time. If these strikes mean I can’t attend, then I’m going to post a rant on this site the likes of which has never been seen 
nitpick: We use Celsius in Britain.
Because we want them out NOW, duh !
Seriously though, it’s not like this thing was planned. The government angered a few active unions by being raging dicks, who went on strike. Sarkozy essentially told them “go ahead and strike. Nobody cares” with his usual helping of scorn. In public. In France.
Yeah, he’s kind of socially and politically tone deaf, that one.
So, others joined in the protest and, well, now we’ve realized just how much all of us were fed up with the fuckers. And the way they’re handling the crisis isn’t exactly tactful, or efficient, or slick.
Yes, in a word, they’re being raging dicks some more. And like fuck we’re going to let them get away with it. Can’t let the bastards win. So yeah, in the immortal words of renowned political analyst Bryan Adams, we can’t stop this thing we started. You gotta know it’s right.
ETA : oh, and also, 18 months from now, the proposed bill will have become a law. It’s much harder to get a law off the books than it is to prevent it from reaching the books in the first place. FYI, the vote on the bill is scheduled for the 28th, so unrest will probably last at least until then (although tomorrow evening, school holidays begin. I’m kinda curious how much of the enthusiasm will drop when people realize the kids aren’t getting to the beach anytime soon…Or how many high schoolers and college kids will still come to the protests when it doesn’t entail dodging algebra :))
I’d think it’s just not high on their priority list right now, is all. The Army is already helping out in some places apparently (just saw a report about Army trucks collecting garbage following a strike by the municipal garbage collection goons). And the cops have already started arresting and fining truckers driving too slow on the highways (which goes down as well as you might imagine).
But really, when you’ve got a pseudo-revolution in the making, tourism income and “what will the EU think of us” flies below the radar. Our transportation minister already has his hands quite full organizing distributions of gasoline right now.
Why are your legislators so eager to pass the damn bill if it’s so unpopular? Aren’t they worried about reelection?
Haha! Nice work quoting Bryan Adams.
It always amazes me that we human beings will burn the henhouse to foil the fox though.
I couldn’t say for sure - as I said, I’m generally not that politically inclined or informed.
Maybe they think they have a duty to push it through 'cause it’s the right thing to do. Maybe they believe they’ll have plenty of silly monkeys to pull out of their hats for us to gawk at between now and the next election. Next one is in 2012 (barring Presidential action), and 18 months is forever in politics, y’know, lots of Roma to evict on frontpages, lots of Muslims in burqas to point fingers at, and the youth crime ! And the terrorists ! And the welfare queens ! Or maybe they’re simply conceited enough to think they run shit here while we just live here.
And frankly, they’re mostly right about that. The right wing hasn’t had much to worry about the opposition in the past decades.
Our Socialists seem about as adept at finding their own arses with a map and compass as the average US Democrat. Can’t unite, can’t find good figureheads, lots of fevered egos squabbling for center stage. The greater minds they have or had are about as personable and charismatic as a wet towel. Youth, which should be a strong lefty force, by and large doesn’t bother voting anymore. Then there’s the Communists and the Greens splitting lefty votes as well, while the right is far more monolithic. Especially now that the nominally center-right party is edging further and further right, with securitarian ideas, tinges of xenophobia etc… grabbing parts of the “fascist” bloc as they go on top of their middle-class and fat cat base.
Bottomline : in my lifetime, France has been firmly entrenched to the right, and the few surges of lefty dominance I’we witnessed haven’t lasted very long, nor amounted to much (the 35h work week is nice, though, I’ll give them that).
Actually, the people should hold the ultimate power, but that’s a difference we have.
I saw a poster once that applies to you, which basically contained the slogan “Here is your lifetime’s supply of democracy. XXX XXX XXX XXX”
Underneath it included the tag line “Please don’t steal the pencil on your way out.”
Democracy isn’t defined by voting once every 5 years. Strikes and unions and the workplace in general are as important a part of true democracy, if not more so, than general elections.
And if you believe in the sending troops in onto striking workers, then you are far from a democrat.
Disagree.
As I alluded upthread, the result of following the majority view on all issues would be complete chaos. Governments must go against public opinion from time to time.
Secondly, strikes and riots are an example of “might makes right”. The bigger the group, and the closer they are to critical services, the more power they yield.
You might just as well say that terrorism is an example of real democracy.
Finally, just hitting out in this way doesn’t lend itself to solutions. Great, so you’re pissed, we get it. Now where do you want us to magic up the money to fund the current retirement age? How do you propose we insulate france from economic reality in the long term?
Man, every time I read a thread on this board that involves the EU I want to ram my head into a wall.
But fundamentally Captain Ridley is trying to argue that democracy is just voting, which is anathema to most of mainland Europe. A functioning democracy requires not just elections and the rule of law, but the active involvement of a nations citizenry, democracy requires continuous participation and deliberation between and citizens and governors.
Ticking a box is not sufficient to ensure that your country is run by the principles which you desire.
Take for example the corruption allegations that have hit Sarkozy and his party after they were elected, how can you allow an openly corrupt politician and party to govern when there is no recall mechanism?
Know whether the strikers are right or wrong is essentially meaningless to whether they have the right to strike. They may be taking the country down the route to hell but when you have 70% popularity and millions of people marching then the Government should listen.
Just think if in the UK we’d protested harder we may not have been involved in Iraq at all…
Amen.
There’s a proud European tradition of restraining elected governments by social pressure, often led by the unions. It wasn’t the ballot box that stopped Moseley, it was the working class blocking Cable Street - in the face of police cooperation with the fascists. Hell, the French 5th Republic itself was born from popular dissent.