European GovermentsTremble as Angry People Take It to the Streets

Governments face angry citizens taking it to the streets as global economic depression hits Europe.

Governments across Europe tremble as angry people take to the streets - protests in Europe.

Ian Traynor, Europe editor

The Guardian, Saturday 31 January 2009

larger | smaller

Article history

 

Arcellor Mittal workers demonstrate during a protest march in Marseille. Photograph: Jean-paul Pelissier/Reuters

 

France paralysed by a wave of strike action, the boulevards of Paris resembling a debris-strewn battlefield. The Hungarian currency sinks to its lowest level ever against the euro, as the unemployment figure rises. Greek farmers block the road into Bulgaria in protest at low prices for their produce. New figures from the biggest bank in the Baltic show that the three post-Soviet states there face the biggest recessions in Europe.

 

It's a snapshot of a single day - yesterday - in a Europe sinking into the bleakest of times. But while the outlook may be dark in the big wealthy democracies of western Europe, it is in the young, poor, vulnerable states of central and eastern Europe that the trauma of crash, slump and meltdown looks graver.

 

Exactly 20 years ago, in serial revolutionary rejoicing, they ditched communism to put their faith in a capitalism now in crisis and by which they feel betrayed. The result has been the biggest protests across the former communist bloc since the days of people power.

 

Europe's time of troubles is gathering depth and scale. Governments are trembling. Revolt is in the air.

 

Athens

Alexandros Grigoropoulos, a 15-year-old middle-class boy going to a party in a rough neighbourhood on a December Saturday, was the first fatality of Europe's season of strife. Shot dead by a policeman, the boy's killing lit a bonfire of unrest in the city unmatched since the 1970s.

 

There are many wellsprings of the serial protests rolling across Europe. In Athens, it was students and young people who suddenly mobilised to turn parts of the city into no-go areas. They were sick of the lack of jobs and prospects, the failings of the education system and seized with pessimism over their future.

 

This week it was the farmers' turn, rolling their tractors out to block the motorways, main road and border crossings across the Balkans to try to obtain better procurement prices for their produce.

 

Riga

The old Baltic trading city had seen nothing like it since the happy days of kicking out the Russians and overthrowing communism two decades ago. More than 10,000 people converged on the 13th-century cathedral to show the Latvian government what they thought of its efforts at containing the economic crisis. The peaceful protest morphed into a late-night rampage as a minority headed for the parliament, battled with riot police and trashed parts of the old city. The following day there were similar scenes in Vilnius, the Lithuanian capital next door.

 

After Iceland, Latvia looks like the most vulnerable country to be hammered by the financial and economic crisis. The EU and IMF have already mounted a ?7.5bn (?6.6bn) rescue plan but the outlook is the worst in Europe.

 

The biggest bank in the Baltic, Swedbank of Sweden, yesterday predicted a slump this year in Latvia of a whopping 10%, more than double the previous projections. It added that the economy of Estonia would shrink by 7% and of Lithuania by 4.5%.

 

The Latvian central bank's governor went on national television this week to pronounce the economy "clinically dead. We have only three or four minutes to resuscitate it".

 

Paris

Burned-out cars, masked youths, smashed shop windows, and more than a million striking workers. The scenes from France are familiar, but not so familiar to President Nicolas Sarkozy, confronting the first big wave of industrial unrest of his time in the Elys?e Palace.

 

Sarkozy has spent most of his time in office trying to fix the world's problems, with less attention devoted to the home front. From Gaza to Georgia, Russia to Washington, Sarkozy has been a man in a hurry to mediate in trouble spots and grab the credit for peacemaking.

 

France, meanwhile, is moving into recession and unemployment is going up. The latest jobless figures were to have been released yesterday, but were held back, apparently for fear of inflaming the protests.

 

Budapest

A balance of payments crisis last autumn, heavy indebtedness and a disastrous budget made Hungary the first European candidate for an international rescue. The $26bn (?18bn) IMF-led bail-out shows scant sign of working. Industrial output is at its lowest for 16 years, the national currency - the forint - sank to a record low against the euro yesterday and the government also announced another round of spending cuts yesterday.

 

So far the streets have been relatively quiet. The Hungarian misery highlights a key difference between eastern and western Europe. While the UK, Germany, France and others plough hundreds of billions into public spending, tax cuts, bank bailouts and guarantees to industry, the east Europeans (plus Iceland and Ireland) are broke, ordering budget cuts, tax rises, and pleading for international help to shore up their economies.

 

The austerity and the soaring costs of repaying bank loans and mortgages taken out in hard foreign currencies (euro, yen and dollar) are fuelling the misery.

 

Kiev

The east European upheavals of 1989 hit Ukraine late, maturing into the Orange Revolution on the streets of Kiev only five years ago. The fresh start promised by President Viktor Yushchenko has, though, dissolved into messy, corrupt, and brutal political infighting, with the economy, growing strongly a few years ago, going into freefall.

 

Three weeks of gas wars with Russia this month ended in defeat and will cost Ukraine dearly. The national currency, at less than half the value of six months ago, is akin to the fate of Iceland's wrecked krona. Ukrainians have been buying dollars by the billion. In November the IMF waded in with the first payments in a $16bn rescue package.

 

The vicious power struggles between Yushchenko and the prime minister, Yuliya Tymoshenko, are consuming the ruling elite's energy, paralysing government and leaving the economy dysfunctional. Russia is doing its best to keep things that way.

 

Reykjavik

Proud of its status as one of the world's most developed, most productive and most equal societies, Iceland is in the throes of what is, by its staid standards, a revolution.

 

Riot police in Reykjavik, the coolest of capitals. Building bonfires in front of the world's oldest parliament. The yoghurt flying at the free market men who have run the country for decades and brought it to its knees.

 

An openly gay prime minister takes over today as head of a caretaker government. The neocon right has been ditched. The hard left Greens are, at least for the moment, the most popular party in the small Arctic state with a population the size of Bradford.

 

The IMF's bailout teams have moved in with $11bn. The national currency, the krona, appears to be finished. Iceland is a test case of how one of the most successful societies on the globe suddenly failed.

Never seen so much BS in one artcile in my life, Guess it is posted at the right forum.

Never seen so much BS in one artcile in my life, Guess it is posted at the right forum.

 

What else did you expect from eisanbt?

What else did you expect from eisanbt?

 

I still like having his input though. We need the opposition around here.

I still like having his input though. We need the opposition around here.

 

I agree completely.

I love this part

 

they ditched communism to put their faith in a capitalism now in crisis and by which they feel betrayed. The result has been the biggest protests across the former communist bloc since the days of people power.

 

Europe's time of troubles is gathering depth and scale. Governments are trembling. Revolt is in the air.

Hitler was {K}orrect !!

 

Kill all Capitolist pigs !!

 

Viva Le Revolution !!

 

Course, France will be the first to surrender as usual, , but viva Le Revolution just the same.

.

.

I agree completely.

 

Charmed. In posting an article such as this, whose validity is somewhat arguable, the idea is more to have you exposed to standpoints to which many are not regularly exposed. Its how some folk involved in this world are experiencing things. I'd say it has a propagandist twing, but essentially everything does. I think that my immediate recognition of this propaganda somewhat demonstrates how desensitized I am to the silly propaganda that is much more common through-out my day to day life (news media, advertisements, fashion etc...). From those things I receive all kinds of messages, many are intentional and many are not so direct as a written word such as "SMOKE".

 

I'd like folks to keep in mind the questionable validity and inherent bias (and its a very big one) of mainstream sources. Most folks are quick to dismiss say Fox News, but given the roots of any large media source, its standpoint is often biased towards maintaining the system that props it, as Fox does in a way that some feel is more easily identifiable.

 

There is no revolutionary Daily News produced and disseminated on a mass scale, an advantage afforded by big time participation in/ support of the economic system, by virtue of the fact that it'd be self-defeating. With just that last note in mind, it seems reasonable to appreciate that you are always going to be missing out on 'the other side' of the story, and that's worth keeping in mind.

Let us look at the word mass. By definition the mass media must aim for a large target audience. Therefore, they are not going to promote either the Marxist ideology that eisenbat prefers nor the classical liberal ideology I prefer. You get both sides of the middle from the mass media. You do not get the extremes on either side. Fortunately, I can walk into any bookstore and see Rand and Chomsky on the same shelf in capitalist societies, for some damn reason Rand may not be available in socialist economies. We all recognize most attempts to censor media are now coming from the left.

Let us look at the word mass. By definition the mass media must aim for a large target audience. Therefore, they are not going to promote either the Marxist ideology that eisenbat prefers nor the classical liberal ideology I prefer. You get both sides of the middle from the mass media. You do not get the extremes on either side. Fortunately, I can walk into any bookstore and see Rand and Chomsky on the same shelf in capitalist societies, for some damn reason Rand may not be available in socialist economies. We all recognize most attempts to censor media are now coming from the left.

 

Ala, the recent attacks on conservative talk radio in Rush and on Sean Hannity during the election, to the least and to the worst, talk of the "Fairness Doctrine", aka, the Censorship Doctrine.

 

First rule of a regime. Take out disenting members of radio and tv.

 

Now I hear they are actually talking of extending the "Fairness Doctrine" to cable news. In other words, even though it isn't on public ariways, and they have no problem with the love affair the broadcast networks have with the left, they want to silence any conservative cable shows that have historically been exempt from this type of censorship because it isn't free, over the public airwaves.

 

You spoke of Chomsky and Rand. You might want to check out Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Facism.

 

The left likes to call conservatives "facists" but historically true facist regimes have been secular progressives, like those in power now.

 

Liberals say conservatives want to intrude into people's bedrooms, that may be true for some, but liberals want to control and dictate how every other room of the house is ran.

Explain again how the "Fairness Doctrine" is something that will censor, never have quite gotten that idiotic spin on what it actually is.

 

To me it says, if Rush can shoot his mouth off on a pedestal, then so can someone else with an opposing view on that same pedestal.

 

Just not seeing the censorship here. But I can see where it would piss off the alleged "FAIR AND BALANCED" Faux News.

.

.

Explain again how the "Fairness Doctrine" is something that will censor, never have quite gotten that idiotic spin on what it actually is.

 

To me it says, if Rush can shoot his mouth off on a pedestal, then so can someone else with an opposing view on that same pedestal.

 

Just not seeing the censorship here. But I can see where it would piss off the alleged "FAIR AND BALANCED" Faux News.

.

.

 

It is the government deciding what programing a private company can use. Traditionally, liberal shows don't make money, they can't sell ad time, and go under. It would cause private radio stations to loose money, on orders of the government deciding the product they sell.

 

This would be like the government coming in and telling you what you have to have on the menu at your business.

 

If liberal shows were profitable, there would be more of them. Al Franken had a show on Air America, which was more inflamatory than anything on Rush or Hannity. He was down right nasty. Air America couldn't make a profit with Al Franken and he was cancelled.

 

It's just a tool to silence talk radio. If they really cared about fairness why aren't they going after broadcast television, or print news media? Easy. Most newspapers and television news is left leaning. (maybe that's why so many of them are falling in ratings, or going broke?)

 

Presidential Campaign Coverage Imbalance

 

By Robert Kettle

 

Published: July 18, 2008

A new report on the major networks’ coverage of the presidential campaign is raising questions about fairness. The Tyndall Report is a news monitoring service that includes ABC’s, CBS’s and NBC’s nightly newscasts. The report found that the networks spent 114 minutes covering Barack Obama and 48 minutes covering John McCain since June.

Many millions more people watch network news than listen to radio.

 

Oh, by the way the Democrats are talking about including the internet in this also.

 

As for your slam at Fox News, there were several studies showing that during the election Fox News was by far the most fair in terms of coverage of the candidates, even above the network news companies, and MSNBC was by far the most unfair.

 

.

 

http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

You always believe what Rush tells you? That is the most ridiculous and absurd thing I have ever heard. Government trying to tell you what to watch and Liberal media ratings are poor.. Perhaps the reason for this is people who like to hear fairy tales, believe in the boogey man, and cling to guns and religion are drawn in to the Orsen Wells/ War Of the World type mantras preached by talk radio loud mouths who spew their hate. Peaceful reasoning would never sell, it's too boring. Doesn't mean it should be denied a platform.

.

.

You always believe what Rush tells you? That is the most ridiculous and absurd thing I have ever heard. Government trying to tell you what to watch and Liberal media ratings are poor.. Perhaps the reason for this is people who like to hear fairy tales, believe in the boogey man, and cling to guns and religion are drawn in to the Orsen Wells/ War Of the World type mantras preached by talk radio loud mouths who spew their hate. Peaceful reasoning would never sell, it's too boring. Doesn't mean it should be denied a platform.

.

.

 

Nobody is denying anything. Liberal talk radio has existed and there are shows out there now. The problem is it doesn't sell and they lose money.

 

The government requiring a privately owned radio station to give liberal talk shows, that can't sell ad time, the same airspace as conservative talk radio that sells ad time very well, is like the government telling you that half of the day you can sell the food that people buy the most, where you can make a profit, and the other half of the day you have to sell crap sandwiches that nobody will pay for, esentially hurting business.

 

Air America's liberal radio shows averaged less than 1.5% audience share at all air times. Businesses don't buy ads that will only hit 1.5% of the people.

 

There is no basis for this doctrine other than to limit dissenting conservative views.

 

Peaceful reasoning. That's hilarious. Obviously you never heard Franken's show or Mike Malloy's show on Air America. They said mean hatefull things. You don't hear conservatives refer to liberals in terms like "rat bastards" and "pigs" like these guys do.

You always believe what Rush tells you? That is the most ridiculous and absurd thing I have ever heard. Government trying to tell you what to watch and Liberal media ratings are poor.. Perhaps the reason for this is people who like to hear fairy tales, believe in the boogey man, and cling to guns and religion are drawn in to the Orsen Wells/ War Of the World type mantras preached by talk radio loud mouths who spew their hate. Peaceful reasoning would never sell, it's too boring. Doesn't mean it should be denied a platform.

.

.

 

You don't have to believe anybody. I usually have the remote in my hand and watch all three channels at the same time. It was blatant.