You correctly list her trail of destruction: zombifying the periphery economies, ultimately wrecking the EU edifice ...Merkel as a problem solver has been a disaster.
Every problem, eventually morphed into an all out crisis under her guidance.
Her starting point was that Schroeder implemented the Hartz IV reforms which revived German competitiveness. She then followed this up by lecturing the rest of Europe that they all needed to do the same, whilst she stood proudly over the resilts as if they were her achievent. What marketing genius would talk down to customers and insult them into wanting to buy from the competition. To say nothing of ruining their ability to purchase again by overwhelming them with debt.
Greece should have been allowed to default and start again. Instead it was given a murderous austerity program and more debt. And then more debt.
Ireland likewise, which is an achievement of statistical fudge over necessary internal realignment.
She also took Germany's history of having good relationships with all it's neighbours and destroyed that also.
Her treatment of Cameron was master class of how to not play your part in a critical bilateral relationship.
Until it reached the point that Britain opted out of the Merkel dominated EU decision making blunder machine.
Needless to say, in her push for more power in central decision making bodies in Europe she has avoided the urgent need to examine their current ( abysmal ) performance.
Could they find anybody worse ?
I disagree. There are places where traditional Christian Democrats don't feel represented by the CDU as it is now, but they tend to have too jaundiced feelings about Bavaria to plump for them instead.He's right, as the CSU is historically separate due to a post-war response to Bavarian particularism. Immediately after WWII, the major party in the Land was the Bayernpärtei, who were essentially the equivalent of the SNP. The CSU stole their electoral clothes by equally playing to Bavarian regionalism and Catholic values, so, as mentioned, the CSU could expand by appealing to Catholic Germans, but the CDU couldn't survive in the region.
You are that guy who constructed his own reality regarding Greece and the Euro crisis. It is not surprising seeing you do the same with Germany.You correctly list her trail of destruction: zombifying the periphery economies, ultimately wrecking the EU edifice ...
But you fail to draw the glaring conclusion.
Merkel is no "Krisenkanzlerin" - crisis [management] chancellor - she's a "Kriegskanzlerin", a war chancellor. This has been the basis of her wild popularity in Germany. She is leading Germany into a hegemonic position in a post-EU Europe.
Translate that into current politics and it's obvious: Germany isn't leading Europe, it is looting Europe (this time via the Euro).
The OP is ineffably naive.
Funny thing is, say this to Germans directly, they don't deny it beyond a minute or two (QED: poster Tacitus is a fake German).
But say it to your average citizen in Germany's shell-shocked hinterland and they say you're being "anti-German".
One understands why people are in denial but God it gets boring.
Say! could I gently and politely ask you to get the name-tags on your posts accurate? #17Schäuble is indeed the only politician in the CDU who could succesfully overthrow Merkel. There were rumours at the height of the refugee crisis that some CDU politicians asked him to stage a coup against her, but he refused because of two reasons: Firstly Merkel had been very loyal to him, and supported him when he fell ill in 2010 due to a complication of the wound he received during an assassination attempt that left him in a wheel chair. He offered his resignation, but she told him to take his time to recover. Secondly, he probably did not want to go down in history as a queen slayer, which brings us to Merkel's biggest advantage: She is still very popular among Germans. Of course, her popularity has declined, but you have to put that in context: Merkel had for a time the highest approval ratings of any German chancellor in the history of Germany. Compared to that, her ratings have dropped, but more than half of the Germans still approve of her. That is more than enough to be reelected.
This is your opinion, but I assure you that is not what most Germans think about her. She is seen as "Krisenkanzlerin", as someone who is very good at dealing with crises. And if you look at it objectively, that is not without justification:
Despite many predictions, the Euro still exists. That countries like Greece are still in trouble is viewed as their own fault, since they chose political mavericks like Varoufakis and Tsipras as leaders and still have not implemented reforms that are deemed as necessary to regain competivness. In fact, most would have liked her to be tougher on Greece and force them out of the Euro which Schäube advocated.
The Ukraine crises: Probably the most defining crises. I cannot stress enough how well her negotiations with Putin, particulary her brokering the Minsk peace deal have been received in Germany.
'Merkel mania' as hyperactive chancellor tackles Ukraine, Greece | Reuters
Her popularity was at its' height in the following weeks, the fact that the Minsk treaty has not been fully implemented is not seen as her fault. Her strategy to keep talking with Putin, instead of escalating the conflict like the USA wanted is precisely what the Germans wanted, there hardly anything more we fear than a war with Russia, yet that she has stood firm against Russian agression is also seen as defending Germany's interest of having a secure and stable Eastern neighbourhood. I'll vote for her next year because I believe - and even people who do not like the CDU agree - that she is the only Western politician capable of talkin eye-to-eye with Putin.
Again, the German view is very different. There was little to no understanding for the British wishes for concessions, and Cameron was often mocked for his wishes which were seen as directly against German interests or European law. Even the AfD (who btw. are not advocating for a Gerexit) did not criticize her for a lack of concession, because the view here is that she gave Cameron all she could. The view on Cameron is obviously very harsh here.
My analysis of the Greek situation still holds good and seems verified by the phenomena day to day. Whereas look at your profound analysis of Greece on the preceding page:You are that guy who constructed his own reality regarding Greece and the Euro crisis. It is not surprising seeing you do the same with Germany.
Right, so Berlin BELIEVES Greece deserves a Great Depression-level meltdown (not for 4 years as in the 30s but for now 8 years and no end in sight):That countries like Greece are still in trouble is viewed as their own fault, since they chose political mavericks like Varoufakis and Tsipras as leaders and still have not implemented reforms that are deemed as necessary to regain competivness . In fact, most would have liked her to be tougher on Greece and force them out of the Euro which Schäube advocated.
Right, so Berlin BELIEVES Greece deserves a Great Depression-level meltdown (not for 4 years as in the 30s but for now 8 years and no end in sight):
a. because they elected 2 grooveyish guys, er, at the start of last year; and
b. because 8 years into a depression they're preoccupied with living hand to mouth when they should be energetically Germanising their economic structures. (This after Merkozy denied them the right to go bust in 2010 and forced the 1st memorandum on them, effectively zombifying their economy.)
I appreciate your view, but I think that's no longer true.He's right, as the CSU is historically separate due to a post-war response to Bavarian particularism. Immediately after WWII, the major party in the Land was the Bayernpärtei, who were essentially the equivalent of the SNP. The CSU stole their electoral clothes by equally playing to Bavarian regionalism and Catholic values, so, as mentioned, the CSU could expand by appealing to Catholic Germans, but the CDU couldn't survive in the region.
If CDU and CSU were to compete Germany-wide, it would be a bit like here in Ireland with People before Profit, Labour, Sinn Fein and the Social Democrats fighting for the few marginal seats/ constituencies.I appreciate your view, but I think that's no longer true.
The CDU under Merkel has shifted to the center and has become attractive for more liberal voters. The CSU on the other hand has tried to maintain its' conservative profil, especially regarding family values, e.g. the so called "Herdprämie". This was implemented due to pressure from the CSU and allocates money to women who stay at home and care for the children. Pretty much everybody except the CSU and AfD mocks the concept, not only because it is oldfashioned, but also because it creates many problems. It complicates e.g. integration, because for children from migrants it is scientifically proven that the best way for them to integrate is early access to a kindergarten.If CDU and CSU were to compete Germany-wide, it would be a bit like here in Ireland with People before Profit, Labour, Sinn Fein and the Social Democrats fighting for the few marginal seats/ constituencies.
Besides, what differentiates CDU and CSU apart from religion and the traditional separatism? Refugee policy would be the major difference. I think the big winners would be the other parties.
Not a rant at all. Quite interesting.On the asylum issue... le Chaim put it in a nutshell to the effect of saying: Should asylum be granted at all?
It's a tough question to answer. The Germans have been dealing with this question for longer than most people think.
Interestingly the word for someone seeking refuge has undergone quite a few name-changes over the decades... over the centuries.
The Hugeonots who fled France for Britain and Germany were termed emigrants because of religious persecution.
The Irish were during the famine were called immigrants.
World war one, i.e. and the establishment of the Red Cross brought the term refugee.
The authorities after World war two which caused much more upheaval used the term "Displaced Persons".
The UN charter on human rights used the term asylum-seekers.
It's interesting why the term keeps changing. Travellers and African Americans have also gone through several name-changes.
The German constitution granted an automatic right to people seeking asylum during the cold war. That public personalities such as sportsmen authors musicians would flee socialism was a powerful propaganda coup against the Warsaw pact countries.
In the 1990's Eric Honecker in the German Democratic Republic hit upon the ingenious response. He allowed the war refugees from Ceylon (Sri Lanka) to land in East Berlin and he let them travel on to West Berlin. I'm sure he cackled to watch the friction develop with the native Germans as 1,000, 2,000 .... 20,000 asylum seekers accumulated in the West.
Willi Brandt, the Prez of the SPD who himself had been an asylum seeker in Sweden during the Nazi period was adamant that the asylum rule should stay in the constitution.
I recall that at one stage this group of black African men applied for Asylum in Bavaria. The local official enquired as to their names. The first answered that his name was "JIM Beam", the second "Johnny Walker" and the third "Flavoured Ice Cube"
They were really taking the piss out of the Krauts.
Long story short, the Germans ended up changing their constitution to exclude those asylum-seekers who came from a safe country... and that included all countries bordering Germany: Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Lux, France Czechia and Poland.
But this phase of the story might have caused discomfort and irritation to the German public... and much mirth to the east Germans. There was no terror organization.
What changes the game completely is that now there are the smugglers who bring the people to Europe for financial gain, and also there is the terror organizations who try to destabelize the host country.
It's also the age of the internet, smart phone and kalashnikov.
In my view the clash of govt and Isis and the smugglers will bring surveillance state.
Well it's here already if what Snowden says is true.
Incidentally. If the west were to abolish or curtain the right to asylum it would mean other third world nations would follow suit and use the west's actions as a justification.
On the other hand, there are 60-70 million displaced persons ... and a few hundred million young men in restrictive societies in search of adventure and money...
Can the west really supply bed and board and education and lawyers and court processes and medical and dental to all the new arrivals?
It's going to be expensive and there will be friction with the lower social orders.
End of rant