New Era Dawns for EU

[798686]

Is that just your own view, Joll, or can you back it up?
I can't remember hearing of or seeing anything that would make me think that this was official policy or an aim of the EU.

Hi Drifter - I was pretty sure I'd heard it mentioned several times as an EU aim, to be a counterbalance to the US, but can't find anything so far. Will keep looking for what I had in mind (thought it was Douste-Blaszy) but if not, then I'm sorry.

It must just be commentaries about the EU that conclude it sees itself as a rival to the US. Sorry anyway - didn't intend to mislead or misinform. It's mentioned several times in the Booker/North history of the EU (which for the most part is excellently documented) - mainly in areas to do with the EU's embronic defence force, Galileo and the euro (which they did admit was to create a bi-polar world in terms of currency - dollar and euro. It was Prodi [again] who mentioned that one).

 

[dandelion]

Lol - it depends whether the knife-collector had made repeated references to what they would eventually used for, and whether you chose to ignore those comments or not.

More a party where someone starts saying wild things about what he'd like to do with the kitchen knives and everyone else quietly gets up and hides them away.

The people who initially came up with the idea of the EEC (and presented it to the nation states) realised (and have mentioned in interviews and memoirs) that it had to be disguised as something else, or the people would never buy it.

Glasss half full. Was anything they did bad?

Jean Monnet...THE founding father, stated that Europe had to be built, stealthily, step by step without the knowledge of the people - with each political step disguised as an economic one, so no-one could jeopardise it before it was complete.

Like the doctor who sees you are killling yourself on fags and booze and starts taking sneaky steps to get you to give up. The fact that he does it behind your back does not change that it is for your own good.

Ted Heath admitted this also,

Interesting chap. One of the last who understood first hand the reason behind the EU. If we do not learn to live together, we are doomed to die together.

Prodi stated that the Euro was 'just an antipasto after which there would be others'

Unfortunately we didnt join.

In a Prodi commissioned document (when he was Commission chief in 2004) written by Dominique Strauss-Kahn and others, it was stated that it was time for Europe to finally admit what it's real aim is:

well perhaps it is, but what is that aim? To judge fom opinion polls there is no taste amongst the people in Europe for further integration.

. From an elitist Europe to a more democratic Europe.

And the member governments would hate that bit.

I think we disagree fundamentally about the EU - it also sounds like you're burying your head in the sand and completely denying the effect the EU already has on us - or maybe you really don't care.

I honestly don't see what effect at all it has on us for the worse, and virtually none which affects my day to day life. Except I can wave my passport at people who nod politely and at least only need one currency for most of the rest of Europe. And I still havn't had any concrete examples!

Either way, there's an elephant in the room whether you like it or not.

Thats just it, what elephant!

Also, the EU maybe returning to a British style of Government (your words) in the member states - but it certainly won't be those states themselves who do the governing. And yes, I do have a very big problem with that.

I take it then you disagree with me that Westminster currently demonstates a terrible and wholly unrepresentative way to run a country, in that you hold it up as something to hold on to and cherish as a wonderful form of government? Or is it that you really don't care how bad it is so long as it is yours? I see the way the government rushes round trying to make people scared of a few terrorists as utterly pathetic, wholly un-british and cynical manipulation of the public intended to create a home grown big brother state. Just what is good about this?

Being British is nothing to do with the form of government, It is a state of mind and it is not going to change because of a simple change in that governments structure.

To state my views I am not worried whether Europe becomes more integrated than it now is or not. It does not worry me that it might. I am sceptical that it will, because many people do not want it (not just in the UK) and it cannot happen without everyone agreeing. I think that if it does it will make virtually no difference to how I live, except I will have just one currency to worry about across Europe and no government jumping into wars at the drop of a hat. The economy would likely be more stable. We would be better placed to face the truly terrible economic upheval which we are going to hit when the oil/food/climate runs out. But with a bit of luck itll be a while yet and I'll be dead by then, so it will be someone else who will be wishing Europe had learnt to live together in the good days. When the shit really does hit the fan it will be really bad for the little guys.

 

[Jason]

Thats just it, what elephant!

The EU has several elephants in the corner. A herd of them!

There is a moral elephant. A policy such as CAP shelters EU farmers from market forces by buying surpluses causing chaos on international markets. First word agricultural subsidies contribute to third world famine. Yes I know that CAP has been reformed and I know that first world countries other than those of the EU subsidise food production, but it is still a big moral issue.

There is an economic elephant. The EU has protectionist policies. Short-term protestionism works. Long term they must fail.

There is a Euro elephant. A single currency requires a single economic policy, which is why currencies and nations have traditionally been the same. Either the EU integrates its economies (which would be a catastrophe for people living in periphery countries including Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece, Ireland).

There is a governance elephant. There is a democratic defecit within the parliament. Lisbon and the first president do not count as outstanding achievements of democracy. Many countries in Europe have a hstory of totalitarian government in the last 80 years - all those of the east, Germany, Italy, Spain. An EU that goes bad and becomes totalitarian is a possibility.

There is a judicial elephant. EU law trumps all national law, which means that national law is vestigal and ever diminishing in importance. Yet as a single legal system the EU cannot reflect the complexity of the conventions of the societies over which it is applied.

There is a cultural elephant. There certainly are people who perceive of themselves as European - but most don't. We have national media and national news.

There is a political elephant. The EU will always be soft socialist. It isn't socialism on the high road to communism, but it is a back street which might get there. Britain's Labour Party sings "The Red Flag" at their conference and many in it as well as in the other socialist parties of Europe are idealogically well to the left.

 

[Drifterwood]

Hi Drifter - I was pretty sure I'd heard it mentioned several times as an EU aim, to be a counterbalance to the US, but can't find anything so far. Will keep looking for what I had in mind (thought it was Douste-Blaszy) but if not, then I'm sorry.

It must just be commentaries about the EU that conclude it sees itself as a rival to the US. Sorry anyway - didn't intend to mislead or misinform. It's mentioned several times in the Booker/North history of the EU (which for the most part is excellently documented) - mainly in areas to do with the EU's embronic defence force, Galileo and the euro (which they did admit was to create a bi-polar world in terms of currency - dollar and euro. It was Prodi [again] who mentioned that one).

I think you may find that it is substantively US propaganda. And I would advise not underestimating the power of US propaganda on the West and the UK in particular. I remember when they felt we were a very serious threat, but then saw us (Europe) as an incompetent bunch of small minded socialist ditherers who weren't going anywhere.

With the UK on board, the EU is by far the world's biggest economy, if we bring Russia home then .......

We should learn from the smart Americans and pursue our own interests ruthlessly. The Chinese are doing the same, the Indians and at some stage, though probably too late, will the Middle East.

 

[eurotop40]

.......
We should learn from the smart Americans and pursue our own interests ruthlessly.
......

The UK thinks it is the US (both are something "united") and in the end makes only their interest (and Irak is the best example - now the british public opinion discovers they did not want it - talk about lack of democracy in the EU...).

 

[dandelion]

The UK thinks it is the US (both are something "united") and in the end makes only their interest (and Irak is the best example - now the british public opinion discovers they did not want it - talk about lack of democracy in the EU...).

Uk public opinion was always against invading Iraq. The government had some difficulty convincing parliament. Some people would suggest this is why it resorted to lying.

 

[Drifterwood]

The UK thinks it is the US

Your opinion, not my experience.

 

[dandelion]

There is a moral elephant. A policy such as CAP shelters EU farmers from market forces by buying surpluses causing chaos on international markets. First word agricultural subsidies contribute to third world famine. Yes I know that CAP has been reformed and I know that first world countries other than those of the EU subsidise food production, but it is still a big moral issue.

The Uk had a system to subsidise farmers before it joined the EU. It worked differently, but it amounted to the same thing. No one has suggested we would scrap farm subsidies if we left. The only issue has been that France got the biggest share of the money and no one was happy about this except France. The reason they got more money is because they have more farm land. The system has always been basically fair in this respect. No government has seriously opposed the principle of subsidising farmers, because the climate here is a bit iffy and needs a subsidy to make it worthwhile at all.

There is an economic elephant. The EU has protectionist policies. Short-term protestionism works. Long term they must fail.

Not if you have a closed system which is big enough. China is doing spectacularly. The US does nicely. The EU is not doing badly either. From this point of view the bigger the better.

There is a Euro elephant. A single currency requires a single economic policy, which is why currencies and nations have traditionally been the same. Either the EU integrates its economies (which would be a catastrophe for people living in periphery countries including Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece, Ireland).

Funny how it works for the US then. This is mostly bollocks. Whether or not there is a theoretical advantage for a country to be able to manipulate its own currency, Governments invariably try to cheat the market and loose (or they win and we loose personally. The UK is just about to set out on a period of gentle inflation to whittle away the value of its debt and our savings). Nowadays huge banks also work very hard to make an awful lot of money trading currencies. They are making that money by taking commission off every currency exchange and manipulating the prices. You bet they don't want to abolish currencies. Multiple currencies are a bad thing.

There is a governance elephant. There is a democratic defecit within the parliament. Lisbon and the first president do not count as outstanding achievements of democracy. Many countries in Europe have a hstory of totalitarian government in the last 80 years - all those of the east, Germany, Italy, Spain. An EU that goes bad and becomes totalitarian is a possibility.

So is one that becomes the worlds best democracy. We have the benefit of the US example to show us what not to do. That some european countries have had problems with democracy is a very good reason to get them cooperating over a new good one. At present the EU is not a superstate and not a democracy. It is open to us to make it either or both if we choose.

There is a judicial elephant. EU law trumps all national law, which means that national law is vestigal and ever diminishing in importance. Yet as a single legal system the EU cannot reflect the complexity of the conventions of the societies over which it is applied.

EU law is mostly set in the form of guidance notes given to the members. It is the job of the members to implement these notes in a way which is convenient for them. Local legal forms are maintained. Tell me which laws you think are most important? The right to go to war? The sentence for a crime? What counts as murder? These last two differ even between Scotland and England, and will continue to differ throughout Europe. You have seen where the right to go to war gets us. How important do you regard laws about sausages and bananas where the EU has some impact? There are important laws about the right to work elsewhere in the Eu and rules getting rid of barriers to this and trade. These are totally fundamental to any sort of relationship to the EU. Overall, the EU has defined areas where it makes rules for everyone, but moderated by the elected parliament and the council of ministers which has a total veto collectively and partial vetoes when divided.

There is a cultural elephant. There certainly are people who perceive of themselves as European - but most don't. We have national media and national news.

So Californians think they are Americans first and Californians far behind? There is no cultural elephant: why should the EU affect cultural diversity within the EU. the US has had much more impact on this.

There is a political elephant. The EU will always be soft socialist. It isn't socialism on the high road to communism, but it is a back street which might get there. Britain's Labour Party sings "The Red Flag" at their conference and many in it as well as in the other socialist parties of Europe are idealogically well to the left.

A quick look at wikipedia is mostly confusing but suggests there are more right wing than left wing members.
European Parliament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Anyway, what is wrong with slightly left policiies if that is what people want to vote for? We live in a socialist state by choice. Winston Churchill brought in the first state pensions about 1910.

 

[798686]

I begin to become a litte frustrated here. No one seems able to say what they find unacceptable about the present setup. This leads me to believe there is nothing wrong with it.

There are plenty of things that I feel are wrong with it...

Firstly, far too many of the UK's powers to self-govern have been transferred to Brussels in successive treaties. Sometimes willingly by the UK, sometimes as a result of being outmanoevred by the EU and other states during horsetrading. There's a list of the EU's competences and joint competences (where member states can legislate only so far as the EU hasn't) in the Lisbon Treaty (starting p.52/53). I was also looking for a list of member states' sole competences but there no longer seem to be any - only areas where the EU can support, advise and co-ordinate.

Far too high a percentage of the legislation our Parliament passes originates in Brussels (I know you've proposed a limit to the % of laws eminating from Brussels v national laws, which I agree with).

Many of the directives they spew out are overzealous and not applicable to all countries they are forced to be implemented in (granted, the UK sometimes gold-plates them even further). For example (and I do agree on a lot of the environmental measures) UK environmental agencies were forced to implement directives designed for wide slow-flowing rivers, which were entirely unsuited to our narrow fast-flowing ones.

Also, the new Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MIFID) is being implemented across the Union as part of moves to create a pan-European financial market. These measures are costly to implement, and directly threaten the prominence of the City of London as a world-leading financial centre, by diluting and undermining London's influence.

Implementing EU competition directives over the past 10 years or so has been disastrous for British companies in the Utilities, Post and Telecoms sectors, etc. Also, the compulsory selling of golden shares left many of our top companies vulnerable to foreign takeover.

The EU competition laws have been unsuccessful in many cases in providing better service to consumers. Competition laws were also designed to fracture and weaken national monopolies allowing Europe-wide companies and markets to emerge - which has been a largely successful strategy - to the detriment of many national companies.

The previously profitable Post Office/Royal Mail, has been destroyed by being forced to open to competitors since '99 to deliver mail in the most profitable sectors, whilst having its hands tied by excess regulation, and the obligation to provide a universal service and do the last mile delivery (for other companies). Other countries (more wisely) ignored EU directives until the last minute giving them time to consolidate (a la Deutsche Post), then pick off the fractured remains of other national companies. I dont see the postal service being better as a result - it's now less reliable, less profitable, and we only get one delivery per day...

These laws (and the compulsory removal of golden shares) have also been disastrous for British power companies - who have been picked off by the likes of Germany's E.on (Powergen), RWE (Npower) and France's EDF. This has resulted in the unwise situation of having most of our power needs reliant on companies based in other countries. And also led to the gas shortage and price spike of 2005/06 partly because British Gas was no longer big enough to amass the required emergency supplies, or to source with certain and secure supplies to provide us with.

There's the much-talked about democratic deficit. Not only does the EU push through treaties that are clearly extremely unpopular with the public (and I know you've decried that one, too), but it is also unaccountable. The EU presides over 480+million people, yet its Commission is unelected and cannot be voted out by the public - neither can the new President. There's also far too much carried out behind closed doors.

Their accounts are suspect - I believe it's now about 10 years since the accounts were able to be verified and signed off. That is an atrocious record, and worse than many of the states it dictates to (even on accounting practise, funnily enough). The EU only switched to the accruals system around 2005, which is an absolutely basic and standard system of accounting. They also only recently replaced their previous (EU-designed) accounts software, which allowed entries to be changed after the transactions - leaving the whole system wide-open to fraud.

There is a judicial elephant. EU law trumps all national law, which means that national law is vestigal and ever diminishing in importance. Yet as a single legal system the EU cannot reflect the complexity of the conventions of the societies over which it is applied.

I agree.

 

[Jason]

Nationalism can be dangerous. There are plenty of examples of nationalism gone bad.

But nationalism is also part of peoples' need to belong. People seem hard wired to require an identity which is bigger than themselves and their family. This can manifest itself in support of a football team - and nothing wrong with this. It can also manifest itself in terms of a support for a nation - say the UK, or one of the home countries of the UK (or both). What so far doesn't seem to work for people in the UK is identity with the EU. We tend to belong both to a home nation and to the UK, but not to the EU. It's them and us. UK v EU.

Whether we should feel this way is an interesting debate, but in the end a peripheral debate. We - most people in the UK - just don't feel we belong in the EU. It's not a matter of liking or disliking the countries of the EU, rather simply that we don't identify with them. Taking Britain further into EU integration is a loss of peoples' sense of identity. And that is a serious matter which transcends economic arguments. The psyche of the nation will not accept ever closer union. 12% or thereabouts are willing to vote for the one issue party of dubious credentials that is UKIP. Something like 70% express varying degrees of unease about the EU.

In order to be a happy nation we have to draw back from the EU. Europe has its "new era" of the Lisbon treaty; as this new era dawns the UK response is most likely to be a Eurosceptic PM in Cameron demanding changes. If he doesn't get them the demands both from the Conservative party and the nation for some sort of vote on continued membership will become ever louder. If he does get them there will be demands for more opt outs.

 

[Drifterwood]

Nationalism can be dangerous. There are plenty of examples of nationalism gone bad.

But nationalism is also part of peoples' need to belong. People seem hard wired to require an identity which is bigger than themselves and their family.

I would call this community. Nationalists try to call it nationalism.

In China, I am a Westerner. No difference in that perception to being from the US, Canada, etc etc

In other places I am a European, then a Brit, then Welsh, then a Gog, and finally, the only gay in the village :biggrin1:

I have no problem associating within the Euro Community, it doesn't exclude me from being other things.

Why tell people that their main identity is as being from the UK?

 

[eurotop40]

I would like to have an explanation from the EU bashers who criticize the lack of democracy etc. Again, the UK has a non elected head of state (sorry, IT IS SO - and, personally, I am a monarchist), the House of Lords is non elective (is it still so), there is an incredible history of blood and violence, colonialism etc. partially due also to the monarchistic system (Cromwell, the Tudors etc. - as any other country, but no better), the different home countries (do you call them this way?) have been basically oppressed - culturally, linguistically etc. - by the English (I might be wrong, please affirm the opposite), the UK has decided to go to war in order to obey Washington (and probably the people did not agree - now, you could say it was Labour's fault, but it seems to me that Ms. Thatcher was no less Reagan's servant than Blair was of W's), etc. etc. and there is still the "courage" to criticize the lack of democracy of the EU?

 

[Drifterwood]

I would like to have an explanation from the EU bashers who criticize the lack of democracy etc. Again, the UK has a non elected head of state (sorry, IT IS SO - and, personally, I am a monarchist), - And Prime Minister

the House of Lords is non elective (is it still so), :- Correct

there is an incredible history of blood and violence, colonialism etc. partially due also to the monarchistic system (Cromwell, the Tudors etc. - as any other country, but no better), :- This is a very big subject, and won't be dealt with properly here. But internally the UK has been very stable in comparison, and I don't think that you can lay genocide at our feet as you could with many imperial powers.

the different home countries (do you call them this way?) have been basically oppressed - culturally, linguistically etc. - by the English (I might be wrong, please affirm the opposite), :- This is true to an extent, but we have ourselves to blame for many of our problems (I am talking as a Welshman). I consider us different countries, but technically I think we are classed as a Principality.

the UK has decided to go to war in order to obey Washington (and probably the people did not agree - now, you could say it was Labour's fault, but it seems to me that Ms. Thatcher was no less Reagan's servant than Blair was of W's), etc. etc. :- Again this is a very big question. You could see this as support for a country with whom we share many values. Were you obeying Germany when you hoarded all the Jewish wealth for the Nazis?

I think that Mrs. Thatcher and Ronnie treated each other with respect as equals on a mission. From a business perspective, the UK would have been fucked by now without her imo. The Blair Bush relationship was very different.


and there is still the "courage" to criticize the lack of democracy of the EU?

Blind "courage" or in Joll's case, Dutch "courage" :tongue:

 

[798686]

I would like to have an explanation from the EU bashers who criticize the lack of democracy etc. Again, the UK has a non elected head of state (sorry, IT IS SO - and, personally, I am a monarchist)...and there is still the "courage" to criticize the lack of democracy of the EU?

The UK system is not perfect, but fairly democratic in comparison to the EU, imo. The 2 or 3 party system works well (rather than the consensus of the EU) so mostly we can vote a party out after 4 or 5 years and opt for something different if we wish. It's worked well for 300 years or more.

The House of Lords was great at keeping a check on what happened in the Commons, but is being gradually changed in favour of appointed (rather than hereditary) peers - and eventually maybe elected ones? The consitution was slightly subverted by Blair, with the attempted abolishing of the Lord Chancellor post, and various other politicisations of the justice system.

It's much easier to get something changed in the UK than it is in the EU. How would the people of the EU show their disapproval of a member/members of the EU Commission? The Lisbon treaty being pushed through while so obviously against EU-wide public opinion is one example of the anti-democratic nature of the Union. The UK parties have also conspired to push through Lisbon (to some extent) - altho' the Conservatives wanted a referendum - and this further highlights the problems of consensus politics.

or in Joll's case, Dutch "courage" :tongue:

Welsh courage actually, Drifter-bach. :wink: (well, English really, since I only live in Wales, lol). Or did you mean I was pissed when I wrote it?? :tongue: hehe

 

[eurotop40]

I am saying this because for Switzerland probably the main issue about joining the EU or not is the fear to have to give up direct democracy, which - in its form - is a peculiarity that was introduced in 1848. The Swiss can even vote on lowering taxation or on abolishing the army (35% wanted to dismantle the Swiss Army). Again, also this system is not perfect and in the end, when you have to vote 4x a year, you end up with a participation of <35%.

 

[Jason]

I would like to have an explanation from the EU bashers who criticize the lack of democracy etc. Again, the UK has a non elected head of state (sorry, IT IS SO - and, personally, I am a monarchist), the House of Lords is non elective (is it still so), there is an incredible history of blood and violence, colonialism etc. partially due also to the monarchistic system (Cromwell, the Tudors etc. - as any other country, but no better), the different home countries (do you call them this way?) have been basically oppressed - culturally, linguistically etc. - by the English (I might be wrong, please affirm the opposite), the UK has decided to go to war in order to obey Washington (and probably the people did not agree - now, you could say it was Labour's fault, but it seems to me that Ms. Thatcher was no less Reagan's servant than Blair was of W's), etc. etc. and there is still the "courage" to criticize the lack of democracy of the EU?

Of course its a mess. But it is our mess. We like it the way it is.

The UK has muddled on for centuries. It has checks and balances so complicated that no-one can really fathom them out, but it works. Yes our Queen is not elected but if we had a vote we would elect her (which is more or les what the Australians did). Yes the tensions between the home countries exist but they are like tensions between family members. You don't have to like your relatives to acknowledge that they are your relatives. You fall out and you make up. In many ways our relationship with the US can be seen as a family relationship. Americans can get mad with the French to the extent of banning the name French Fry - but they are not going to get angry with Brits to that extent.

 

[Drifterwood]

Jason, what planet are you on? This folksie view of the world and muddling on in some quaint manner. It isn't real buddy, the world doesn't work in this romantic memory that never existed. We kill kings that piss us off. Our history isn't cuddly, it's bloody and the whole of human failure and greatness is played out in its pages.

Tell me where and how you think we will play out if we don't commit to Europe?

 

[Jason]

Hi Drifter, the EU won't work. Long term it has as much chance of delivering prosperity as did the old USSR, and as it all goes wrong there is a real risk of problematic political regimes. Committing to the EU is like committing to the Titanic. Whatever the problems of being outside the EU - and they are real - they are less than the problems of being in it.

 

[eurotop40]

Jason, what planet are you on?

Comparing the EU to the USSR makes no sense.

 

[798686]

It does really - if you force strong national identites to become subsumed in a large superstate (USSR, Yugoslavia) the tensions/nationalistic feelings eventually resurface.

That's why it's better to go for a collection of nation states, rather than a federal state, which has been the ultimate aim so far...