New Era Dawns for EU

[D_Doewell Dadong]

Actually the cost of politics within the EU is quite low. The UK is number two to China in terms of paid politicians. I have no problem getting rid of half of them at least.

I don't know how much time you spend in other EU countries, but I can't see where the democratic deficit is as a result of the EU.

Combined, the EU is the largest economy in the world. It's time we got our act together.

If japan china and india got together they would possibly have the largest economy. but so what?
its just not a good idea.

 

[Jason]

I don't know how much time you spend in other EU countries, but I can't see where the democratic deficit is as a result of the EU.

Strictly the democratic deficit is a perception. It refers to a perceived lack of accessibility to the decision making process and a perceived lack of accountability of the democratic institutions. For example the people of Europe perceive that they have no access to the process of determining their first president. MEPs are not perceived as accountable to their constituents.

The clearest example of a democratic defecit (and which seems to go beyond perception) is that the EU parliament is run by a PERPETUAL Grand Coalition of all main parties. This coalition is not a short-term expedient (eg in case of war) but something which has become institutionalised. Voting in EU elections is perceived as meaningless because whomever the people vote for the Grand Coalition will run the parliament. As a result many in the EU use EU elections as a chance to express a view on national politics.

Democratic control through the parliament is therefore perceived to be a defecit. The EU is influenced to an extent by national parliaments (which are democracies) but this is democracy at second hand. Most worryingly the Grand Coalition (and therefore the EU parliament) is to an extent influenced by a relatively small group of unelected Civil Servants. The concept of Civil Servants being willing to serve whatever government is in power has gone because the Grand Coalition will always be in power. The Civil Servants know they will serve only the Grand Coalition; the politicians know they will work withthe same Civil Servants long term.

The concern with Lisbon is that it gives more power and a framework for increasing power to an institution which has perceived weaknesses in its democratic structures.

 

[123scotty]

Actually the cost of politics within the EU is quite low. The UK is number two to China in terms of paid politicians. I have no problem getting rid of half of them at least.

I don't know how much time you spend in other EU countries, but I can't see where the democratic deficit is as a result of the EU.

Combined, the EU is the largest economy in the world. It's time we got our act together.

At last the point the e.u is the largest economy in the world. the strongest currency in the world . as in it doesn't have bonds to unscrupulous countries i.e. dollar and china. thanks for a positive post

 

[Drifterwood]

If japan china and india got together they would possibly have the largest economy. but so what?
its just not a good idea.

Japan has proposed a common Asian currency. China wants a global currency.

Strictly the democratic deficit is a perception. It refers to a perceived lack of accessibility to the decision making process and a perceived lack of accountability of the democratic institutions. For example the people of Europe perceive that they have no access to the process of determining their first president. MEPs are not perceived as accountable to their constituents.

The clearest example of a democratic defecit (and which seems to go beyond perception) is that the EU parliament is run by a PERPETUAL Grand Coalition of all main parties. This coalition is not a short-term expedient (eg in case of war) but something which has become institutionalised. Voting in EU elections is perceived as meaningless because whomever the people vote for the Grand Coalition will run the parliament. As a result many in the EU use EU elections as a chance to express a view on national politics.

Democratic control through the parliament is therefore perceived to be a defecit. The EU is influenced to an extent by national parliaments (which are democracies) but this is democracy at second hand. Most worryingly the Grand Coalition (and therefore the EU parliament) is to an extent influenced by a relatively small group of unelected Civil Servants. The concept of Civil Servants being willing to serve whatever government is in power has gone because the Grand Coalition will always be in power. The Civil Servants know they will serve only the Grand Coalition; the politicians know they will work withthe same Civil Servants long term.

The concern with Lisbon is that it gives more power and a framework for increasing power to an institution which has perceived weaknesses in its democratic structures.

Perhaps the failing is with democracy itself, or rather the working of democracy on a arge scale. IMO, Habeas Corpus is a cornerstone that we should never leave.

There are two other questions to my mind. Political Parties, there are three that can ever come to power now, all things to all people, slightly left of centre and slightly right of centre. How much difference does it make as to which one is in power? I would say that it is what they do when they are in power. Is it not remarkable that the current economic troubles are caused by a leftist government allowing, being complicit, with the markets on the rampage?

The sanctity of the nation state. Why? I am not sure whether it is even a question of managing a cultural grouping. I would accept that Europe is a defineable grouping, but I am still uncomfortable that we should create exclusivity. So, I conclude that it is a matter of management of blocks, this needs manadarins, but before we end up fulfilling Orwell's vision we need to find a democratic stopper at the right level. This is why we need a constitution, but a simple one IMO.

A conclusion would be that National Government is looking redundant. A central organisation administering the whole with maybe 400 representatives keeping the system in check. Your individual local concerns would be managed at that local level. Yes, it's about management, but management within which controls?

It's a long journey, but do people wish to see their old nationalism dismantled?

 

[123scotty]

a quick note on single currency and the e.u. i found this article about japan and a single e.u. style currency

[, Likely to be a renewed call from Japan for 16 countries in Asia and Australasia to create an EU-style single currency area which would — if it gets off the ground — fundamentally change the global balance of power.

The 10-country ASEAN bloc (Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) is already committed to establishing a single market and manufacturing base by 2015 as well as expanding trade and economic links to regional trading partners such as China and India.

Japan's more ambitious plans include the adoption of a single currency and the creation of a far larger trading bloc taking in not just ASEAN countries but all countries of the East Asia Summit, which brings ASEAN together with Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea.]

others are watching and copying the e.u. goals. why do some people in Britain think they would be better of alone. how could you stand up to these big trading blocks. and a small currency. if japan gets there way and creates a single currency it would put great strain on the dollar. and other smaller currencies including the pound

 

[eurotop40]

The sanctity of the nation state. Why?

Nation states have only brought war, death and oppression.

 

[Jason]

why do some people in Britain think they would be better of alone. how could you stand up to these big trading blocks. and a small currency.

Of course Britain would be better off within a trading block. But membership of such a trading block is not acceptable at any price. The EU has gone beyond a mere trading block and is moving in the direction of a super-state. This may or may not be the view of the people of Europe (when they've been asked they've said no, and there does seem to be a clear no voice in the UK). There are also issues around the democratic deficit and the perpetuation of abhorrent policies such as CAP.

The perfect solution would be that Britain leads reform within the EU. However the structures have been set up to defend themselves - there is an entrenched bureaucracy - so this is hard - I think it could have been done a few years back, but probably not now.

Maybe the UK should look at membership of another trading block. NAFTA is the obvious. Yes I know this too has problems but not on anything like the scale of the problems posed by the EU. Canada does not expect to become a state of the USA as a result of NAFTA.

 

[798686]

Nation states have only brought war, death and oppression.

Empires haven't done all that well on that score either...think British, original Roman, Holy Roman, Ottoman, USSR (superstate), etc...

Not sure how much better the EU will be in the long-run. They've already all but destroyed the North Sea fishing waters, and aren't helping off the coast of West Africa either. Plus the damage wrought by CAP and EU protectionism.

Admittedly, it has helped to prevent war between EU states since WW2 (altho not in the Balkans, on the EU's doorstep at the time) - but how long this will last no-one knows. Plus, part of the peace in Europe since WW2 has been down to NATO presence and protection against the USSR, etc.

A lot of Empires and superstate constructs also have violent phases when they eventually implode (will that be sooner or later in the EU's case?).

 

[Drifterwood]

A lot of Empires and superstate constructs also have violent phases when they eventually implode (will that be sooner or later in the EU's case?).

If it's any consolation, we'll outlive the USA.

I would like to add that my world view is that everyone finds a fair place. But then I am not the one stopping that to my knowledge.

 

[eurotop40]

Empires haven't done all that well on that score either...think British, original Roman, Holy Roman, Ottoman, USSR (superstate), etc...

Not sure how much better the EU will be in the long-run. They've already all but destroyed the North Sea fishing waters, and aren't helping off the coast of West Africa either. Plus the damage wrought by CAP and EU protectionism.

Admittedly, it has helped to prevent war between EU states since WW2 (altho not in the Balkans, on the EU's doorstep at the time) - but how long this will last no-one knows. Plus, part of the peace in Europe since WW2 has been down to NATO presence and protection against the USSR, etc.

A lot of Empires and superstate constructs also have violent phases when they eventually implode (will that be sooner or later in the EU's case?).

I do not really think the EU can be compared to an empire. A certain integration (that is already existing) can only be of advantage. The silly thing is when EU countries start taking diametrally opposite direction like it happened with the Irak war (and this was intentionally favoured by that corrupt and bloodthirsty Bush administration). For this reason it is not bad that they have a coordinated foreign policy.

Talking about the North Sea fishing waters is a bit of a stretch compared to the environmental catastrophes the US constantly produce. This reminds me of the UK housewives concern on New Zealand butter in case the UK would join the Common Market. Really looking at peanuts compared to icerbergs.

Furthermore, I would like to stress that most national states have liked to erase all minorities in particular from the linguistic point of view (see the Languedoc in France, Wales/Scotland/Ireland in the UK, Suedtirol in Italy, Transilvania in Romania etc.). This was not the case in imperial structures like the Austro-Hungarian empire (and even in the Ottoman empire).

 

[jason_els]

Nation states have only brought war, death and oppression.

Ah! But nation states have also only fought war, death, and oppression. One great argument for the nation state is that it presents a foil for the nation states which have gone wrong for whatever reason. Without the allies, there would have been no foil to the axis. Without NATO there would have been no foil to the Warsaw Pact. Sometimes governments just plain go wrong and it takes outside forces to bring them back to reasonable stability and civility. There is no guarantee that someday in the future, a dictator or radical bloc might be kept from power over a single EU government. If that happens, then where do you run to if you're among the oppressed? When one government controls everything, there is no safe haven, no one to present a foil, no one to defeat (or at least fight) the bad guys.

Humans are still largely tribal and I still think it pays to respect tribal boundaries because once you get many tribes together, controlling them becomes next to impossible without a strong central government which necessarily requires less democracy. The more the tribes differ, the stronger the central authority needs to be. The EU is comprised of many different tribes yet all those tribes have been essentially western in nature. The more it expands east and south, the less the new members have in common with the old. Hubris is the greatest failing of the west. We assume everyone recognizes and wants to live a western lifestyle and think westernized thoughts. We think we're doing other cultures a favor by westernizing them. What happens when the EU expands into countries with cultures wildly different from the EU itself? Cultures that would find women driving or voting, to be extreme in themselves? Cultures where homosexuality is met with death? Where stoning or beheading are seen as just? Where democracy is not necessarily seen as a virtue? Where religious edicts supersede civil law?

 

[Jason]

Nation states have been around for a long time, and every achievement and failing of humanity can in a sense be laid at their door. The comment that nation states have brought war, death and oppression strikes me as similar to the claim by some women that only men fight wars (so men are bad).

Nation states have systems in place to keep them in check. Each nation in Europe has the institutions of an open society. People can get their views across and can influence the path taken by their nation. By contrast the EU lacks many functional institutions of an open society. The half billion people of Europe do not govern the EU - rather an elite governing class does this. If PM Brown decides to declare war on somewhere there are mechanisms for protest - demonstrations, parliamentary processes, legal challenges, pressure from churches, TUs. If the EU decides to declare war on somewhere I have no idea how to protest.

 

[eurotop40]

Come on, stop all these silly arguments and be honest. There is a type of British guy that is essentially colonial in his/her mind (and this is an observation I have just heard by a Canadian of scottish descent). British colonialists have for generations told the colonized people how things should be done and they have always been convinced that they are perfect. Now the UK has shrunk to a country like any other european country except that English is spoken in some of the old colonies. Just by this fact some British people still think they are very special and infallible. This - and the fact that being of English mothertongue makes people somehow refractary to learning foreign languages, thus not really understanding what the other say - is the very core of the UK-EU problem.

Nation states have been around for a long time, and every achievement and failing of humanity can in a sense be laid at their door. The comment that nation states have brought war, death and oppression strikes me as similar to the claim by some women that only men fight wars (so men are bad).

Nation states have systems in place to keep them in check. Each nation in Europe has the institutions of an open society. People can get their views across and can influence the path taken by their nation. By contrast the EU lacks many functional institutions of an open society. The half billion people of Europe do not govern the EU - rather an elite governing class does this. If PM Brown decides to declare war on somewhere there are mechanisms for protest - demonstrations, parliamentary processes, legal challenges, pressure from churches, TUs. If the EU decides to declare war on somewhere I have no idea how to protest.

 

[deleted213967]

Hmm...it's a bit of a slap in the face for democracy though.
And grrrr...we want out.

At first I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, being on the other side of the pond and all, but it is clear now that your disinclination to accept long-awaited and inevitable European integration is rooted in less-than-rational roots.

 

[123scotty]

Come on, stop all these silly arguments and be honest. There is a type of British guy that is essentially colonial in his/her mind (and this is an observation I have just heard by a Canadian of scottish descent). British colonialists have for generations told the colonized people how things should be done and they have always been convinced that they are perfect. Now the UK has shrunk to a country like any other european country except that English is spoken in some of the old colonies. Just by this fact some British people still think they are very special and infallible. This - and the fact that being of English mothertongue makes people somehow refractary to learning foreign languages, thus not really understanding what the other say - is the very core of the UK-EU problem.

maybe you have hit a point maybe some people still think britain is still an empire. and could be a reason for not wanting to integrate into europe. but britain maybe small but still has influence. and a good reputation. i don't think people think they are perfect or infallible. the fact that brits do not speak as many languages is two fold one english is an international language and the second the education system. but i would like to point out how many international call centers are here. so we do not lack in other languages .britain is not perfect but the fact that we are here talking about it means there is something worth saving. culture, values and architecture are good areas to start. the fact i would like an independent scotland does not mean i will disrespect the values or demean the rest of the u.k. in a technological time i do not think the spoken language is as much a barrier as it once was. and should not be a barrier to understand others. unless some others want it to be.

 

[jason_els]

Come on, stop all these silly arguments and be honest. There is a type of British guy that is essentially colonial in his/her mind (and this is an observation I have just heard by a Canadian of scottish descent). British colonialists have for generations told the colonized people how things should be done and they have always been convinced that they are perfect. Now the UK has shrunk to a country like any other european country except that English is spoken in some of the old colonies. Just by this fact some British people still think they are very special and infallible. This - and the fact that being of English mothertongue makes people somehow refractary to learning foreign languages, thus not really understanding what the other say - is the very core of the UK-EU problem.

British exceptionalism is much like German exceptionalism. Both have a sneaking suspicion, which they will rarely admit and never in public, that somehow they are superior to everyone else. I think it's ingrained in Anglo-Saxon society. Americans have no problem admitting it though the Canadians and Australians do. The white South Africans used to admit to it most blatantly. It's the nature of the culture. It's how a country of a mere 50,000 square miles took over 3/4 of the planet and its oceans and held on to it for so long. It's how a country so rigidly stratified in class became a cradle for democracy that turned into one of the most stable governments in the world without a written constitution and yet still retains a monarch with more powers than most and the only one who is still wears a real crown.

I don't pretend to understand the English perfectly but I don't think anyone can who hasn't lived among them a very long time. When Hitler called England, "a nation of shopkeepers," nobody took it as the insult with which it was intended. They really do go out in the noon day sun too and they also really and truly have no national myth. They're an odd lot capable of being extraordinary in ways both good and bad. Like it or not, their legacy is still a major influence in the world and will be for a long time to come. It's not surprising to me in the least that they aren't joiners because leaders frequently aren't and, to this day, the English consider themselves leaders from the top of society down to the bottom.

 

[eurotop40]

British exceptionalism is much like German exceptionalism. Both have a sneaking suspicion, which they will rarely admit and never in public, that somehow they are superior to everyone else. I think it's ingrained in Anglo-Saxon society. Americans have no problem admitting it though the Canadians and Australians do. The white South Africans used to admit to it most blatantly. It's the nature of the culture. It's how a country of a mere 50,000 square miles took over 3/4 of the planet and its oceans and held on to it for so long. It's how a country so rigidly stratified in class became a cradle for democracy that turned into one of the most stable governments in the world without a written constitution and yet still retains a monarch with more powers than most and the only one who is still wears a real crown.

I don't pretend to understand the English perfectly but I don't think anyone can who hasn't lived among them a very long time. When Hitler called England, "a nation of shopkeepers," nobody took it as the insult with which it was intended. They really do go out in the noon day sun too and they also really and truly have no national myth. They're an odd lot capable of being extraordinary in ways both good and bad. Like it or not, their legacy is still a major influence in the world and will be for a long time to come. It's not surprising to me in the least that they aren't joiners because leaders frequently aren't and, to this day, the English consider themselves leaders from the top of society down to the bottom.

That's what I mean. They have this feeling and should be honest about it and not hide it behind excuses like "the EU is not democratic" etc. Just say plainly "we believe we are the best, we don't need anyone, we don't need to learn from anyone". Please, that's the door.

 

[Guy-jin]

If it's any consolation, we'll outlive the USA.

It is a shame you will not live to see that day.

 

[jason_els]

If it's any consolation, we'll outlive the USA.

Better hope not because then your best friend will have disappeared and then you'll have to play nice with the Frenchies and the Russians (who have yet to discover how to properly cut a suit). Opting out of the EU will not be an option.

That's what I mean. They have this feeling and should be honest about it and not hide it behind excuses like "the EU is not democratic" etc. Just say plainly "we believe we are the best, we don't need anyone, we don't need to learn from anyone". Please, that's the door.

I don't think that's the case at all. The British are great pragmatists and don't like being told what to do without good reason. The EU is, on the whole, undemocratic. In that they're right. It also has some absurd rules which make things much more difficult to accomplish than they should be. I understand their reticence.

 

[eurotop40]

I don't think that's the case at all. The British are great pragmatists and don't like being told what to do without good reason. The EU is, on the whole, undemocratic. In that they're right. It also has some absurd rules which make things much more difficult to accomplish than they should be. I understand their reticence.

Again, this comes from the assumption that the British do everything perfectly, which is NOT the case. Any "sacred" nation state could claim that. Is that a surprise that they lost all their colonies, primarily the US?

The whole misperception comes from a linguistic problem. English speakers seem to stick together, although their societies are VERY different. Let me make an example (and this is a direct experience of mine). I used to work for an american company that had its european headquarters in the UK just because they felt they would understand each other better, much better than those bloody continental europeans (that btw have those devilish bidets). Anyway, the UK headquarter was quite lazy (very much "unionized") and lost a lot of business, in particular in Switzerland. After a while, the american company moved its european headquarters to the Netherlands, where they might have a funny accent when they speak english, but they were not shy of doing overtime according to the US east coast time zone. The business restarted flourishing.

Again, the language "advantage" is a very weak advantage the UK has right now. Wait until India comes really into business, or the Chinese and Japanese can communicate properly, and then not only the UK will be one among other european countries, but - if outside of the EU - it will disappear into nothing.