 |
|||||
Tobias Sjö Telefon:
|
Några av mina texter...
Insändare om biltullar: Insändare om biltullar: Insändare om biltullar: Insändare om P-terrorn: Insändare om hyresmygel: Debattartikel om löftesbrott: Debattartikel om NATO: Debattartikel om kvotering i moderaterna: Debattartikel om skattesänkningar Motion till European Democrat Students’ Council: Motion till European Democrat Students’ Council: Motion till European Democrat Students’ Council: Motion till European Democrat Students’ Council: Artikel till International Young Democrat Students’ nyhetsbrev: Artikel till International Young Democrat Students’ nyhetsbrev: Artikel till International Young Democrat Students’ nyhetsbrev: Insändare om biltullar: Trots vallöften och folkligt motstånd forcerar socialdemokraterna biltullsfrågan. Det finns egentligen ingen anledning att vara förvånad. Socialdemokraterna har alltid älskat den stora staten och dess möjligheter att kontrollera människor. Biltullarna kommer bara att vara ytterligare ett steg på en sedan länge upptrampad stig med personkontroll, folk- och bostadsräkningar och samkörning av statliga register. Billström kommer säkert att lova dyrt och heligt att registeruppgifterna om dig och alla andra stockholmare inte kommer att användas på fel sätt. Men det har myndigheter och makthavare alltid lovat. Och det är dessutom de som avgör vad som är ”fel” sätt och vad som är ”rätt” sätt att använda uppgifter som kan kränka medborgarnas integritet. Det är bara att hoppas att sossarna inte hinner med att sätta upp den nödvändiga mätutrustningen i biltullsstationerna innan valet – och sedan rösta bort dem så att de inte får chansen igen! Insändare om biltullar: I en intervju i Dagens Nyheter kallar statsminister Göran Persson löftessveket med biltullarna i Stockholm ”en specialhistoria” som skulle utgöra ett undantag för socialdemokraterna. Men i själva verket är socialdemokraternas historia full av sådana ”specialhistorier”. Föräldraförsäkringen skulle höjas hette det i förra valrörelsen. Värnskatten skulle vara tillfällig. Änkepensionerna skulle återställas. I Stockholms län skulle priset på SL-kortet vara oförändrat. I Stockholms stad skulle barngruppernas storlek minskas och 20.000 nya bostäder byggas. De socialdemokratiska löftesbrotten är helt enkelt för många för att kallas ”specialhistorier”. Snarare ligger det närmare till hands att minnas socialdemokratiske riksdagsmannen Lennart Nilssons ord:"Folk uppfattar vallöften som löften, det är ett problem för oss." Insändare om biltullar: Socialdemokraterna och Bosse Ringholm drar återigen den gamla valsen om att de ska sänka skatten. Vi har hört den förr, alltid utan resultat. Denna gång vill finansministern göra en skatteväxling som inkluderar biltullarna eller trängselskatterna i Stockholm. Enligt Ringholm, som dessutom är ordförande för Stockholms socialdemokratiska arbetarekommun, ska alltså sänkta skatter i hela landet ska finansieras genom en specialskatt på stockholmare! Jag hoppas att stockholmarna minns hur finansministern behandlar invånarna i sin egen kommun vid nästa val. Insändare om P-terrorn: Stockholmarna har kort minne. Det är inte länge sedan Annika Billström var ansvarig för parkeringspolitiken i Stockholm. Då blev det krigsrubriker om P-terror och hetsjakt på Stockholms bilister. Nu är Billström tillbaka, denna gång som finansborgarråd. Men politiken är fortfarande densamma. Förutom att höja skatten och planera biltullar för stockholmarna har sossarna sett till att fördubbla priset för boendeparkering i hela staden. Det är bara att hoppas att alla stockholmare som nu kommer att drabbas av ytterligare en pålaga också kommer ihåg hur de löste problemet med P-terrorn förra gången - genom att rösta bort sossarna vid nästa val! Insändare om hyresmygel: Att Lars Ohly, blivande partiledare för vänsterpartiet, är kommunist är ingen nyhet. De flesta verkar ta det faktum att han förespråkar en ideologi som lett till miljoner människors död med en axelryckning. Och kanske ligger folkmorden och skenrättegångarna för långt bort från den svenska vardagen för att de ska kännas skrämmande. Men Ohlys förakt för vanliga människor i samhället är nog så skrämmande, även om han inte sitter domare vid folkdomstolar eller har makten över röda armén. Att det är svårt att få bostad i Stockholm känner Ohly till. Han har själv varit med om och fatta de politiska beslut som omöjliggör en öppnare och rörligare bostadsmarknad. Idag finns få inslag av frivilliga avtal på bostadsmarknaden i Stockholm. Likväl gavs Ohly för någon tid sedan chansen att ingå ett frivilligt avtal om hyressättningen på en bostadsrätt i Stockholm. Han fick själv ange vilken hyra han ansåg vara rimlig, vilken hyra han var villig att betala för att bo i en bostadsrätt som tillhörde någon annan. Kommunisten Ohly alltså själv fått avgöra exakt hur mycket av de egna resurserna som skulle användas till hyra. Trots det har han i efterhand anmält sin värd till hyresnämnden – en politiserad partssammansatt låtsasdomstol som på grund av politiker som Ohly har rätt att riva upp frivilliga avtal. Nu är det inte klart hur ärendet kommer att bedömas. Men principen som Ohly driver visar föraktet för andra människor. Dels struntar han fullkomligt i den helt vanliga medborgare som haft oturen att hyra ut sin bostad åt Ohly. Att de haft en gemensam överenskommelse anser inte Ohly vara relevant. Hur bostadsrättens ägare ska klara av att hosta upp de 50.000 kommunistledaren nu kräver honom på bryr sig inte Ohly om. Men förutom att värden kränks så struntar Ohly uppenbart i alla andra människor på Stockholms bostadsmarknad – människor som kanske varit beredda att ingå ett avtal till samma pris som Ohly och dessutom stå vid sitt avtal. Som politiker vet Ohly att utnyttja systemet, men hindrar samtidigt att systemet förändras så att fler skulle kunna hitta en bostad på en rörligare marknad. Kommunistledare agerar på olika sätt i olika tider. Men föraktet för enskilda människor och frivilliga avtal är ständigt detsamma. Debattartikel om löftesbrott: Den tyske förbundskanslern Schröder ska nu höja skatten, trots ett uttryckligt vallöfte om att inga skattehöjningar skulle genomföras om han fick behålla makten. Schröder kände till den tyska ekonomin redan innan valet, när vallöftet utfärdades. Det innebär att han var beredd att bryta löftet redan när det gavs. Det falska vallöfte har lett till stora rubriker i Tyskland. Bland annat anklagas Schröder för valfusk för att medvetet ha fört väljarna bakom ljuset. I Sverige lyfter ingen längre på ögonbrynet över att ett socialdemokratiskt vallöfte bryts. Ingela Thalén förklarade redan 1990 att socialdemokratiska vallöften är ”en målsättning som vi lovar att vi har som mål att arbeta för”. Riksdagsmannen Lennart Nilsson fyllde i bilden: ”Folk uppfattar vallöften som löften, det är ett problem för oss.” De senaste valen visar att socialdemokraterna fortfarande ljuger som en häst travar. 1994 utlovades satsningar på vård, skola och omsorg. Reglerna för företagande skulle förenklas. Arbetslösheten skulle minska. Skatterna skulle på sin höjd höjas marginellt, och enligt Mona Sahlin skulle det "inte drabba någon fattig". Senare lovades att skattesänkningar skulle genomföras när utrymme fanns. Den förda politiken har istället inneburit att skatteuttaget sedan 1994 höjts med 260 miljarder, fastighetsskatten tvingar pensionärer från hus och hem och företagarna har fler regler än någonsin att följa. I Stockholm är situationen än mer tydlig. I den senaste valrörelsen var frågan om biltullar en av de viktigaste i Stockholm. Trots uttryckliga socialdemokratiska löften om att inga biltullar skulle införas har nu Stockholmarna att se fram emot fyra år av både höga skatter och nya biltullar. Väljarna kommer säkerligen att höra fler löften från Schröder, Billström och Persson. De gör bäst i att komma ihåg att en lögnare emellanåt kan tala sanning. En socialdemokrat, däremot, är och förblir en socialdemokrat. Debattartikel om NATO: Under förra veckans möte i Prag beslutade NATO att släppa in ytterligare sju öst- och centraleuropeiska länder i gemenskapen. Det innebär, som nämnts i flera media, att Sverige kommer att marginaliseras i det europeiska maktspelet. Många av de nya medlemmarna är med raska steg in i EU, vilket innebär att en förkrossande majoritet av de framtida EU-medlemmarna dessutom kommer att dela ett försvarspolitiskt samarbete inom NATO:s ram. Självfallet kommer detta leda till en maktförskjutning i de viktiga frågorna om en gemensam utrikes- och säkerhetspolitik. Sverige får mindre att säga till om, och riskerar att se sig omsprunget av exempelvis de baltiska länderna. Det är bra att denna utveckling aktualiserar frågan om svenskt NATO-medlemskap. Den europeiska maktpolitiken är emellertid ett lätt vägande skäl för en NATO-ansökan. Ett väsentligt tyngre skäl ligger i statens grundläggande funktioner, hopplöst negligerade i den dagliga politiska debatten. Statens grundläggande uppgifter är att skydda medborgarna från angrepp så att de kan leva sina liv i harmoni med varandra. För detta krävs ett inre och yttre försvar och ett rättsväsende, vanligen manifesterat genom polisen, försvarsmakten och domstolarna. Att Sverige sedan lång tid negligerar såväl domstolarnas ställning som prioriteringen av polisens arbete är väl känt. Frågan är dock om inte den största försummelsen gäller nedmonteringen av det försvar som förväntas skydda medborgarna från yttre angrepp. Den gamla tidens europeiska säkerhetsordning med stora stående arméer riktade mot varandra längs järnridån har vittrat bort. Detta har av svenska politiker tagits till intäkt för att behovet av ett försvar har försvunnit. Ett NATO-medlemskap, hävdas det, är ju helt onödigt när det inte längre finns en motståndare. De som tänker så gör om ett av historiens klassiska misstag: att rusta för gårdagens krig. De nya hot som möter Sverige är långt mer komplexa än ett konventionellt, storskaligt krig med stora arméförband. De senaste årens terrorangrepp ger en föraning om den typ av hot som kan komma att bli aktuella. Men den totala hotbilden om ett decennium är fullkomligt omöjlig att förutse. Vi kan vara förvissade om att hot kommer att finnas - de kommer bara att vara mer disparata och svårbemötta. Mot den nya tidens hot står sig resurserna hos en liten stat slätt. Just därför är det så viktigt att Sverige ansluter sig till försvarssamarbetet NATO. Genom samarbetet ges möjligheter till större kunskap och större resurser att möta nya scenarier - att följa med sin tid helt enkelt. Varje stat har en grundläggande skyldighet att skydda sina medborgare mot yttre angrepp. När Sverige uppenbart inte kan leva upp till detta på egen hand är det istället makthavarnas skyldighet att lösa uppgiften genom att samarbeta med andra demokratier inom NATO:s ram. Om de avstår riskerar staten att förlora all legitimitet. Debattartikel om kvotering i moderaterna: Jag blev medlem i Kronobergsmoderaterna när jag gick med i MUF för snart nitton år sedan. Då var Lars F. Tobisson och Ella Tengbom-Vellander förste respektive andra vice partiordförande. Jag visste inte vilka de var eller var de bodde och jag brydde mig inte stort om det. Jag gick med i ett parti som förespråkade frihet för enskilda människor och som såg människor som individer, inte som delar av ett kollektiv. Jag upplevde mig ha mer gemensamt med en moderat från Stockholm, exempelvis partiledaren Ulf Adelsohn, än med en kommunist från Växjö. De människor som företrädde mina idéer var de som hade mitt förtroende - oavsett var de bodde. Nu har kronobergsmoderaternas representant i moderaternas valberedning, Suzanne Frank, genom en reservation riktad mot Stockholms oppositionsledare Kristina Axén Olin skapat ett problem som inte finns. Hon får understöd från Hallands länsförbundsordförande som menar att väljarna i landet behöver "trovärdiga företrädare i presidiet". Deras gemensamma tes är att det föreslagna partipresidiet har fel geografisk sammansättning. Men det är inte där problemet ligger. Socialdemokraterna lyckades samla runt dubbelt så många väljare som moderaterna i senaste valet. De har överhuvudtaget inget presidium, endast en ordförande som är bosatt i Stockholm. När moderaterna tappade röster i förra valet vann folkpartiet många av dem. Folkpartiets presidium utgörs av stockholmare. När moderaterna under Carl Bildt vann regeringsmakten var partiordföranden stockholmare, förste vice partiordförande naturaliserad stockholmare och andre vice kom från Uppsala län. Inte direkt något som borde ha tilltalat landsortens väljare, om nu geografiskt avstånd från Stockholm var det som skapade trovärdighet bland väljarna. Jag har med stor glädje på nomineringsstämmor hört Suzanne Frank förklara det felaktiga med könskvotering. Det viktiga sades då vara individernas kompetens, inte deras kön. Nu föreligger ett förslag till moderat partistyrelse där två av tre presidialer är kvinnor. Ingen har kommit på tanken att de skulle vara föreslagna på grund av sitt kön, eller kritiserat dem på denna grund. Däremot bor de tydligen enligt Suzanne Frank på fel ställe. För mig finns det två skäl att välja enligt kompetens hellre än enligt geografi. Det första är att det är i överensstämmelse med moderaternas grundläggande värden. När det gäller politiska lösningar så motsätter sig moderaterna kvoteringstänkande och kollektivism. Det ger ett minst sagt märkligt intryck att inte använda samma principer på den egna organisationen. Det andra skälet är att moderaterna inte har råd att avstå från att använda de mest kvalificerade personerna i arbetet för ett friare Sverige. Det kan finnas olika åsikter om vilka dessa är, och vilka egenskaper en god moderat företrädare bör besitta. För mig är det självklart att val av bostadsort är lika irrelevant som kön i den bedömningen. Debattartikel om skattesänkningar Nu har de borgerliga partierna offentliggjort sina budgetförslag. Det är läsning som förvånar på flera sätt. Att moderaterna har minskat totalsumman för sina föreslagna skattesänkningar är inte förvånande. Dels för att de 130 miljarder som nämndes i förra valrörelsen aldrig var partiets siffra, utan var kreativt framräknad av socialdemokraterna. Dels för att partiet blivit hudflängt av en enig mediekår som utgått från att 130 miljarder är mycket pengar, detta trots att socialdemokraterna höjde skatten med det dubbla bara på ett par år, utan att media reagerade. Likafullt förvånar moderaterna genom att öka de finansierade skattesänkningarna något. Det är modigt och gör också att partiet behåller tätpositionen som skattesänkarparti, men det är inte tillräckligt. Störst förvåning skapar folkpartiet, vars partiledare under 2002 års valrörelse klagade över att moderaternas skattesänkningar inte var trovärdiga, och kompletterade detta med att själv backa från sina egna skattesänkningsförslag med hänvisning till konjunkturläget några dagar innan valet. Det senaste året har konjunkturen knappast förbättrats. Ändå föreslår nu folkpartiet större skattesänkningar än förra året. Det är såklart roligt att fler vill sänka skatten. Frågan är dock vilken trovärdighet Lars Leijonborg har som skattesänkare, när han inte ens vågar stå för förslagen i en valrörelse i sällan skådad medvind. Alla de ovanstående föreslagna förändringarna, och skillnaderna mellan dem, är däremot felräkningspengar i det stora perspektivet. Sverige har fortfarande världens högsta skattetryck. Svenskarna är därmed det ofriaste folk som bor i en demokrati. De nu föreslagna skattesänkningarna rör sig om någon enstaka procent i skattetryck. Skattetrycket i EU-länderna ligger mer än 10 procentenheter lägre än så. OECD-genomsnittet ligger ytterligare lägre. Det visar att det är möjligt att leva med god standard även om vi skulle sänka skatterna med en tredjedel. Höga skatter innebär nämligen inte hög välfärd, tvärtom. Det enda höga skatter innebär är att staten har stort inflytande över de beslut som fattas i samhället. Högt skattetryck innebär med nödvändighet att utrymmet för människor att fatta helt egna beslut utan politisk påverkan är lågt. Det går att organisera sjukvård, skolgång, arbetslöshetsförsäkringar och kulturarrangemang utan att det offentliga styr och kontrollerar varje detalj. Det handlar bara om att låta människor själva få större delaktighet och inflytande över de beslut som rör dem själva. Och vägen dit går genom rejäla skattesänkningar - inte det lirande på marginalen som moderaterna, folkpartiet och kristdemokraterna nu ägnar sig åt. Sverige behöver en borgerlighet som vågar visa på vilka besparingar som ska göras i det offentliga systemet, och vilka områden som bör skötas utan offentlig inblandning. Då krävs det att moderaterna och de borgerliga bröderna morskar upp sig. Motion till European Democrat Students’ Council: “We are not forming coalitions of states, we are uniting men” -Jean Monnet, “Honorary Citizen of Europe”. (At the European Council in Luxembourg on 2 April 1976, the heads of State and government proclaimed Jean Monnet an “Honorary Citizen of Europe”.) Ever since the end of World War II, when Jean Monnet 1947 was appointed by the French government to head the French economic long term planning, the overall main goal for the building of the European Community has been to include people from all over Europe. It has been a step-by-step building with the idea that everybody is welcome. The way has been enlargement when it has been possible. There has been four successful enlargements and now the EU face the biggest enlargement in its history when Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Malta and Cyprus are welcome to join the Union in 2004. In the history of enlargements the new countries have always joined the European co-operation on equal terms. There has never been any exemption from that so far. The common market with its four liberties, free movement of people, capital, goods and services, is the fundament of the words of Jean Monnet about “uniting men” in the present European Community all since the Maastricht treaty and its common market was put in action 1993. When the first enlargement took place in 1973 and Denmark, United Kingdom and Ireland joined, Ireland had an economically lower level than the then present average level of the Union. When the second enlargement took place in 1981 and Greece joined the Union, Greece also had an economically lower level then the then present average level of the Union. When the third enlargement took place in 1986 and Portugal and Spain joined, also Portugal and Spain had an economically lower level then the then present average level of the Union. Only during the fourth enlargement in 1995 when Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the Union, all the new member states were economically around or above the average economic level of the Union at that time. So throughout the four enlargements of the European Community so far, three have included countries that have been at an economic level that underscored the then average level of the Union. Out of the nine new member states from the four enlargements so far, four of the new member states have had an economically lower level than the then present average level of the Union. All the new member states have after they joined the Union achieved significant economical progress. This has accrued without harming the economy of the old member states. Both the old and the new member states have gained economically from all the enlargements of the Union so far. European Democrat Students therefore believe that it’s wrong to have a seven years exemption for the free movement of people from the countries that will join the European Union in 2004. It’s principally undefendable and the economic history of the four enlargements gives no economical support for such a policy. We believe that all people of the member states of the European Union should share the same rights, there should be no exception for anybody from any member state from the right to move freely in the European Union and work and live wherever that person wants. Everybody should simply have the same rights. We believe that no country should have the right to have a seven years exemption for the freedom of people to move wherever they want to work and we believe that the countries that have that right should not put that in use. The time when people got different treatment because of their origin should be over – especially within the European Union. Peter O. Sellgren Tobias Sjö Fredrik Y. Törn Motion till European Democrat Students’ Council: “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.” “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” For a considerable time, Saddam Hussein and his policies towards the Iraqi people as well as neighbouring countries, has formed a considerable threat to the stability in the Middle East. As believers in the principles of democracy and universal human rights, it is our firm opinion that every force – from single individuals to coalitions of states – has not only a moral right, but also a moral obligation to fight breaches of these principles. Unfortunately , the reality of international power politics makes it impossible to pick all fights, or to fight every battle. The lack of resources to punish all wrong-doers must however not be used as a reason not to punish any wrong-doer. Applied to the national arena, such a stance would be like not allowing the police to intervene against a few individuals during a riot, just because it lacks the resources to stop the whole riot at once. Some might argue that it is wrong to punish someone who might not be the worst wrong-doer when worse villains go free. (Though that argument might not be valid in the Iraqi case, taking into consideration the faults of Saddam Hussein, it still deserves to be confronted.) But by clearly stating that no one, even if his military force is great, ever can be completely free to oppress his people, a signal is sent to all other potential oppressors. In order to reduce crime, you don’t have to hunt down every criminal. It makes a great impact just to punish a few to make the rest aware of the risks of misbehaving. But if you on the other hand seize the criminal, find proof against him, and still don’t sent him to jail, everyone in society will learn that it is safe to commit a crime – no one will ever care to punish it. Besides this, the very universality of the principle of human rights makes it even more important to seize every opportunity to bring liberty to those whom it have been previously denied. Following this line of argument, a military intervention in Iraq in order to once and for all remove the dictator Saddam Hussein from power is not only just, but also desirable. It might be argued that we have a moral obligation to preserve peace as long as possible, or that war is such a horrible thing that it should be avoided at any cost. But even if war is an ugly thing, it is not the ugliest of things. To the Iraqi people, the situation in the country is not necessarily better than a state of war. The people are not only being denied their democratic rights, but also the right to live their lives in liberty. The oppression ranges from censorship to extermination and genocide. To people in the neighbouring area, but also to people all over the world, the Iraqi weapons programs pose an increasing threat. There might be ways of diminishing those threats without the actual use of military force. However, all those ways have proved to go via the readiness to use military force, following a sad pattern established in the 20th century. Dictators are seldom known to obey the mere wishes of democratic leaders. It is only when the wishes have been backed up by considerable military resources – and a willingness to use them – that changes in the dictators’ attitudes have been seen. If we wish the Iraqi threat to be dealt with not by a military intervention, but by extensive weapons-inspections, we still have to be prepared to use military force as an alternative course of action. We might be sad about this, and we may plead that we use this force most reluctantly. Nevertheless, the threat of overwhelming force seems to be the only language comprehensible to dictators. If we are serious about demanding a dismantling of the Iraqi threat, we also have to make it known to Saddam Hussein that the consequences of not allowing the means necessary to do so, will be grave and serious. Following this line of thought, it is clear that a support of a military intervention in Iraq is desirable not only for those considering it a first hand alternative, but also for those who want such intervention only as a last resort. Thus, the European Democrat Students, gathered for Winter University in Prague, support the initiative to use the military force necessary to rid Iraq of nuclear and bio-chemical weapons, and to liberate the Iraqi people from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Peter O Sellgren Tobias Sjö Motion till European Democrat Students’ Council: Since the founding of the European Union and its predecessors, the right to move goods freely has been one of the core values of the European Union as well as of the market oriented parties of the European centre-right. As a matter of fact, the entire idea of the European co-operation of the 20th century has been that people who trade with each other are less likely to go to war against each other. Thus, the concept of free trade is the very fundament of the prosperous development in Europe since World War II. The United States has, from time to time, been among the strongest advocates of the idea that trade can help bridge chasms between people. Few Presidents of the United States have, in their election campaigns, been more outspoken supporters of global free trade than President George W. Bush. It would seem that the current republican government of the United States and the currently centre-right dominated European Union would have a lot in common, both in basic values and in a shared positive approach towards free trade. Still, since the spring of 2002, a war is being fought between these two impressive political powers. Even if the European Union in no way has a clean record when it comes to following the principles of free trade in every aspect, the present trade war was started by the United States. This was done by the decision to raise the steel-tarriffs in order to protect the weak domestic steel industry. Sadly enough, the European Union responded in a way that not only continues the escalation of the trade war, but also is against the best interest of the European people. The outcome or possible solution of this trade war is yet too early to tell. But one thing is evident: it is neccessary to have a clear strategy on how to act upon other countries’ raised tarriffs. To form such a strategy, we need to re-think what a subsidy or a tarriff is. When a government subsidizes certain goods, this interferes with the normal price mechanisms of demand and supply. Since the government has to finance its subsidies, the actual outcome of a subsidy is a transfer of wealth from one group – the taxpayers in general, to another group – the receivers of the subsidy. Since many subsidized goods cross borders, these subsidies do not only interfere with the domestic market of the subsidizing country. In many cases there are protests from other countries when a government starts to subsidize the domestic producers of goods. It is believed that it would be unfair to the producers in the other countries. But what isn’t taken into consideration then, is the fact that the subsidies actually make the goods cheaper also for the consumers in the other countries. Thus, there is a transfer of wealth from the taxpayers in the subsidizing country to the consumers in the surrounding countries. Off course, at a start, business would be less profitable for the producers who don’t receive subsidies. We might even consider it likely that a number of not very profitable companies in other countries will be put out of business as a direct effect of the lower prices their competitors can keep thanks to the received subsidies. As a matter of fact, this might even used as an argument on why government subsidies are immoral as such. However, many companies in these countries can prosper since the domestic market and the people in their home countries actually have more wealth after the transfer mentioned above. The increased wealth also means that the supply of investments increase. This means that their possibilities to change production, speciallize or otherwise make adjustments to create more profitable production have improved. In the long run, both the producers and the consumers of the surrounding countries benefit from the subsidies – and the taxpayers in the subsidizing country are the big losers. Another possible scenario is that a government subsidizes the consumers of goods. The transfer in that case is more likely to be paid by the same people who benefit from it, at least in countries with high income taxes. The transfer is made from all taxpayers – including companies – to the consumers of the certain good. There are off course other problems with this form of subsidy, especially the fact that it is often used to control the consumers and the markets by political means. If we leave those problems by simply stating that governments shouldn’t control the citizens by interfering with their choices as consumers, we can look at the effect on other countries. Since the consumers of the subsidizing country get wealthier by the subsidy, they will be more likely to buy more goods. That means that they will buy more from domestic producers, but also that they can buy imported goods. Thus, producers from exporting neighbouring countries can get a share of the consumers’ increased wealth. Again, the losers are the taxpayers in the subsidizing country. Regarding this, it seems clear that a subsidy from another county’s government in the long run isn’t harmful for anyone but the taxpayers of that country. The country’s trade partners will actually gain from subsidies. Therefore, no subsidies should be considered as a hostile act in trade relations, and should definately not lead to counter measures such as new subsidies. When it comes to tarriffs, it is clear that they can harm producers of goods in exporting countries. Making the competing foreign goods more expensive protects the domestic market. Also in this case, a transfer of wealth is made. But this time, it goes from the ones who would have made a benefit from trading without the tarriff, i.e. the consumers of the tarriff imposing country as well as the exporters of goods from other countries. The receivers of wealth are the domestic producers of goods who are protected from foreign competition and can continue producing non-competetive products. But what is important to remember is that the total wealth diminishes, since the society becomes less productive and since many deals will never take place because of the increased costs. Thus, everyone in the country will in the long run lose from its own tarriff. Whereas the subsidies do not harm the neighbouring countries, we see that tarriffs actually can. The question remains what the response to an imposed tarriff should be. Since we have found that a domestic subsidy will transfer wealth to other countries, a subsidy is not a good way to protect a country’s trade agaist another country’s tarriff. What is even more disencouraging, a counter-tarriff will be most harmful to the country’s own consumers, and in the long run make the country less wealthy. Thus, it seems like the best response to another country’s tarriff simply is to do – nothing! In the long run, the biggest loser will be the country that imposes the tarriff, and sooner or later it will have to draw the consequences from this and lift the tarriff. In the meantime, the surrounding countries will have gained from staying away from tarriffs and letting the trade flow freely. Every attempt to fight a tarriff by another tarriff will only escalate a trade war, decrease trade, interfere with business and make the country in general and especially its consumers less wealthy. Regarding this, I urge that the European Democrat Students gathered at the Summer University of 2002 state: - that governments should not subsidize producers, and send this motion to the EPP-group of the European Parliament. Tobias Sjö Motion till European Democrat Students’ Council: With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet empire, it became a common view that the ideologies were dead. The concept of a democratic market economy was believed to have outlasted its most fierce opponent, and no other competitors were to be taken seriously. “The end of history”, with a prosperous future for all seemed to be the most likely forecast not only for Europe, but for the world. Alas, this has not been the case. Not only did the social turmoil that appeared in the vaccuum after the Soviet power bring fuel for xenophobic ideas dressed in the words of Fascism or National-Socialism, both often wrongfully referred to as “right-wing extremism”. The fading memory of the Soviet dictatorship has also made it possible for socialists and communists to promote socialist ideals among young people, people who barely had started school when one of the vilest empires ever collapsed. These ideas may be considered extremist from our point of view. It might however be wise to remember that fifteen years ago, ideas like our own were considered extreme in most of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe. We might therefore conclude that the word extremism in itself is only a reference to what is the norm in the surrounding society, it says nothing of the quality of the ideas the word refers to. What is more troublesome is that the earlier mentioned ideas - Fascism, National-Socialism, Socialism, and Communism - have other things in common: they promote a totalitarian society and they are prepared to commit acts of violence to reach their goals. Wheter it is the burning of immigrants’ houses and synagogues or the stone-throwing at windows and policemen, they are all attacks on the open society. Attacks like this must not be tolerated. But far too often, the defence is not helping the open society. The common political response is to forbid the unfortunate views the attackers hold. If this is a remedy to help the open society, it does more damage than it helps. Instead of curing the disease, the remedy might kill the patient. The very basis of our open society is the right to your own mind. In a true democracy with real human rights, every person is entitled to think what he wants, to believe in what deities he wishes or not to believe at all. The State does not own your mind, neither does it have the right to control your thoughts and beliefs. An open society also permits its citizens to speak freely about their ideas or beliefs. Wheter the ideas are poor or good, or if the beliefs are true or false is not a matter for the State. It is a matter for the people in society to decide to listen or not, and for opponents to find counter-arguments against the poor ideas and false beliefs. This is the core in a free and open society. As a matter of fact, it is totally inseparable from the concept of the open society. This means that every step to outlaw the spreading of ideas in order to save the open society will do just the opposite. The society will be less free, and you will never know where the line will be drawn next time. What ideas will the State find unwanted? What religion will be outlawed? Furthermore, the State will never be successful in its attempts to outlaw ideas or political ideologies. When ideas are outlawed, they might disappear from the town squares and public arenas, but they won’t go away. They will remain in the closed cirquits and private meetings, where there will be no opponents to make a counter-argument. And when they surface again, the defenders of the open society will be unprepared to take the discussion. Instead of banning ideas, the State should ban actions. Not only is it the only effective defence against the totalitarian activists, but it also goes hand in hand with the basic functions of the State, and it is also within the limits of what the State actually can accomplish. When an “extremist” - or rather a totalitarian activist prepared to use violence - goes into action, the State should be prepared with proper policeforce to deal with the problem. Force must be met with proper force to protect the lives and property of the citizens. When the activist appears before court, the State should be prepared with well defined laws where acts of violence are not tolerated, and where youthful spirits and “social engagement” is not a tolerable defence for actions comitted against fellow citizens. There is nothing wrong in letting the legal system reflect the open society’s disliking of totalitarian activism, but it should be done at the proper place. Acts of violence comitted in order to promote totalitarian ideas should be punished – harshly. But the ideas themselves are better met with arguments and facts than with legal measures. Thus, we move that the Concil of European Democrat Students state That totalitarian views, however unwanted, are best met with arguments and not by being forbidden. That an open society shall prohibit acts of violence committed in order to promote totalitarian ideas, but that it shall be done within the frames of criminal law. Fredrik Y. Törn Tobias Sjö Artikel till International Young Democrat Students’ nyhetsbrev: After the general elections of 15th September, the balance between the alternative coalitions remains, but the governing Social-democrats gained and the strongest non-socialistic alternative lost 1/3 of its seats in parliament. The Environmentalist party may tip the balance towards a non-socialistic government, but most likely the Social-democrats will stay in office. After four years of a Social-democrat minority government based on the support of the Left party (former Communist) and the Environmentalist party, the election on September 15th was going to be a competition between a left-wing alternative where the Social-democrats refused to let their smaller supporters into the government, and a centre-right alternative with four parties eager to form a coalition. Ever since the year 2001, with large focus on the Swedish presidency of the European Union and the aftermath of September 11th, who both gave the Swedish Prime minister Göran Persson the opportunity to act the international statesman, public support for the ruling Social-democrats have been very high in Sweden. Thus, in the beginning of 2002, the chances of a change of government seemed very slim indeed. As the spring proceeded, the support for the Social-democrats slowly began to fade while the centre-right coalition caught up, and in late August, the polls showed even numbers for the centre-right and social-democrats including their supporters. What had seemed a dull election campaign with a certain winner a few months earlier, was suddenly a thrilling, nail-biting experience. The tactic of the four centre-right parties under the lead of the Moderate party became to focus on their unity, to try to present a valid alternative to the minority rule of the Social-democrats. Being the largest party in this constellation with its 22,9% in the last election, the Moderate party of course had the most to lose from this tactic. Still, the objective to throw Mr. Persson out of the Prime minister’s office made the party willing to take the risk. In my opinion, this proved to be a fatal mistake. The Moderate party is based on the ideas of economic liberalism and conservatism. In earlier years, the criticism of the overwhelming social welfare state with the world’s highest tax-pressure has indeed been fierce. Between elections, the polls have sometimes shown a 30 percent support for these ideas, but the party has not yet managed to reach these heights on election day. Eager to do so this time, the recipe seemed to be to soften the profile a bit. Combined with the tactic to show unity with the other centre-right parties, this opened the field for the ”liberal” People’s party which indeed had a more clearly focused campaign, but also were quite willing to stab the Moderates in the back at a number of occasions during the campaign. What had started as a slow leak from the Moderates to the People’s party in mid-August, became a flood after the Swedish state television broadcast a documentary where campaigners from the Moderate party were filmed with a hidden camera while being provoked to express quite xenophobic views. The Moderate party leadership denounced these views and the documentary was criticised for being partial (xenophobic opinions were expressed by members of all parties to about the same extent, but the documentary was totally focused on the Moderate party). This didn’t help. After a campaign with great problems explaining the need of tax cuts to the voters and lacking other issues with a sharp profile, the xenophobic issue rising the last week before the election became a devastating blow to the Moderate party, who managed to keep the position as the second largest party in the parliament, but with a support of only 15.2 %. The total vote for the centre-right coalition was 43.7 % and 48.1 % for the Social-democrats and Left-party. With 4.6 % for the Environmentalist party, this has led to a situation where the government for the coming four year period is still undecided. Officially, the Social-democrats have ruled out any seats in the cabinet for the Left or the Environmentalists, whereas the Environmentalists have ruled out support for any government of which they are not a part of. Talks and negotiations have taken place, where the two most likely outcomes have been either a centre-green coalition with the passive support of the Moderate party, or a minority Social-democrat government who gets support from the Environmentalists and the Left-party by carrying through a large part of their desired policies. At this very moment, all is still undecided, and it is still possible – if not likely – to have a five-party green-centre-right coalition, or maybe the Social-democrats will give up their resistance and form a majority government together with the Environmentalists and the Left-party. I hope to be able to get back to you with a more brief report in this matter. No matter what government Sweden will get, it will not be carrying out the ideas of freedom and liberty. For this to happen, we will need a come-back of a strong and re-vitalised Moderate party. We’ve got four years of hard work ahead of us, but be certain: we will prevail! Artikel till International Young Democrat Students’ nyhetsbrev: Recently a number of new countries from central and eastern Europe became members of NATO. Finally, countries that were once occupied or controlled by the Soviet Union could take the last step into a new Transatlantic community, uniting all countries behind the values of democracy and market economy. They were cordially welcomed. The first of May, a similar event will take place when the European Union admits 10 new members. But where the NATO countries seemed happy to get new friends and colleagues, the present EU members have been very reluctant to welcome the citizens of the new member states. Though the politicians of Europe all agreed that the enlargement of the EU was an important step towards a peaceful future for the continent when the decision to allow the new members was taken, today they are singing a different tune. The fundament of the European Union is that trade and exchange between people can prevent war. This is the idea behind the concept of the single market, where goods, services, capital, and people can flow all over EU without the obstacles of national borders, all in order to promote and facilitate trade between people, businesses and countries. One of the great advantages of enlarging the union is of course that the “domestic” market grows. Larger markets decrease transfer costs, allow businesses to expand more easily and make it possible to explore new segments that would not exist on a smaller market. Specialisation increases, costs decreases - the market economy is at work. In Europe, that seems to go for the markets of goods, capital and services. But for some reason, the leaders of the current members have decided that the same market must be restricted for labour. Instead, the members of the EU have all introduced “transition rules”, meaning that the advantages of the expanded market must wait since the Europeans have to be protected from it. The proponents of the transition rules claim that there will be a massive migration from the new members to the present EU, and that the migrating people want only one thing: social welfare. This is a view that is not only rude and selfish, but based on prejudice rather than evidence that this great migration will actually occur. Today, there are significant differences in the social welfare systems between EU countries. Wages, taxes, unemployment rates and many other things that people claim will be reasons for Poles, Estonians, or Czechs to flee to Germany, Great Britain, or Sweden already differ substantially between present member countries. People do not leave Portugal to live in Sweden, even if Sweden pays higher social benefits. Families do not pack all their belongings and move across the border from Spain to France, even if the unemployment rates might be lower there. On the contrary, people do not even move from one part of the country, where unemployment is high, to another where it might be easier to find a job. The migration rate in Europe is about one percent. I find it sadly low, but we have to face facts - people find it hard to leave their family, relatives, and a community where they actually know the language. To think that people at a large scale would leave their homes in Hungary or Slovakia to go to countries where they don’t speak the language - without having a job or even the intention of getting one - is outright stupid. There just is no evidence that suggests that this would happen. In fact, looking at the numbers, the highest rates of migration is among the highly skilled and well educated workers. And these are wanted in whatever country they go to. When we consider that the soon-to-be members have considerably higher growth rates than the present members, it really makes no sense to expect large numbers of people leaving their native countries with labour markets that are, or soon will be, screaming for labour, in order to move to countries whose major problems are stagnating economies and rising unemployment rates. But the most tragic thing about the transition rules is not that they are unnecessary. It is that they jeopardise the very idea of the European Union. When NATO accepted its new members, it could do so because the organisation had always stood fast and promoted democracy and market economy. To defend these values is and has always been essential to the organisation. That has made it easy to admit members who share these values. But when the EU admits new members, it combines enlargement with exceptions from the very ideas on which the union was founded. If the EU wants to make exceptions from the single market when it enlarges - then what is the enlargement good for? If it does no longer believe in the benefits of free movement as a vehicle for growth, stability, and a peaceful future - then who needs the EU? Artikel till International Young Democrat Students’ nyhetsbrev: My article on transition rules in the European Union was meant to discuss a few issues raised by current events in Europe, but also to discuss issues of more universal nature. I think we can find many of the sought for answers in this duality. THE EUROPEAN UNION This of course also means that no rules that apply to EU members should be forced on Switzerland or any other country. I am totally opposed to the recent development where EU has put pressure not only on its own member states, but also on e.g. Switzerland to give up its bank secrecy and harmonise taxes. FREE MARKETS It is true, however, that no nation today applies this policy. On the other hand, I don't know any country with no government subsidies to companies, where government does not charge too high taxes or impose too many regulations on its citizens. If we had several completely neo-liberal states in the world, but none had chosen to allow a free labour market, Mr. Maegerle’s argument about the lack of these examples would be valid. Unfortunately, we have no such perfect states. Regulations destroys markets - for goods, for services, and for labour. And the ones suffering for it in the long run is the consumers and citizens of the nation which chooses to regulate its markets. When we look closer on the issue of free labour markets, I also find a difference in the applied perspective. For some reason, Maegerle, who claims to be neo-liberal and refers to Friedman and Hayek, choose to pose all questions from the perspective of the nation-state. My perspective, however, is that of the individual. THE QUESTIONS b) The number of people choosing to make the most of their freedom is irrelevant to me. The basic point is that the right to decide where to work belongs to the individual - not the state. In a Catholic country, I do not care if not a single person goes to a Protestant church, or to a mosque or synagogue. But I believe that their right to do so is crucial to an open society. c) What is good to the "national economy" is what is good for the individuals that makes up that economy. If more people are allowed to compete and contribute, if employers are allowed to employ freely, the national economy will gain the most. That none of the leaders of today have understood this is tragic, but not more surprising than the lack of leaders who have abandoned all quotas and tariffs for imports of goods. d) Mr Maegerle is of course quite right. There is no reason why Switzerland should open its borders to EU and not to the US or the Philippines. The larger the market the better. It is however less likely that very many people would make a good trade off by moving to another country to take a job if the initial cost is a ticket that cost several hundred Swiss francs. That makes an open labour market for the nearest proximity more important for practical reasons. But the largest gain comes to those who allow the lowest amount of regulations. THATCHER AND THE VISION FOR EU Her great achievement as Prime Minister was to oppose socialism and to provide more freedom to her fellow countrymen as well as to people worldwide at a time when it was needed the most. That doesn't mean that everything she did was right, nor that no more steps towards greater freedom can be taken after she has left office. However, I sincerely think and hope that I and Lady Thatcher share one basic value: to increase personal freedom everywhere. |
||||
