New Era Dawns for EU

[D_Andreas Sukov]

lets hope the socialist party are keeping the Public in line then and campaigning against this new nationalist stance.

 

[798686]

Actually found some weird pre-election publicity Cameron's been doing in Gloucestershire...

He crosses the line with just his undies on, in about 3rd place.

 

[Jason]

LOL Joll. I wonder how many EU health and safety rules and regs this Gloucestershire event breaches!

By the way Lemon I think the socialists in Greece are playing the nationalist card for all it is worth. It is flag and anthem time:
From the Greeks of old whose dying brought to life and spirit free now with ancient valour rising let us hail you, oh Liberty!

 

[798686]

LOL Joll. I wonder how many EU health and safety rules and regs this Gloucestershire event breaches!

All of them, I imagine. :wink:

 

[Jason]

Financial Times today says that Greece must leave the Euro - it is a matter of when not if, and better for everyone if it is sooner.

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - Why Greece will have to leave the eurozone

This is how I see the EU develop post Lisbon:
* Greece leaves the Euro.
* Some or all of Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland leave and no new countries join.
* Anti-EU sentiment sweeps through many nations of Europe. Cameron becomes UK PM and the international focus of the anti-federalist agenda.
* The European institutions are held up to public scrutiny and found wanting. For example a leak publishes details of MEP's expenses.
* Germany leaves the Euro by appreciating out of a tarnished currency. The Euro is basically France plus Benelux.
* A new treaty is forthcoming with a new direction / third way - effectively a repeal both of Lisbon and of parts of earlier treaties. The core idea is a Europe of sovereign nations.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

I like your analysis Jason, as I saw that article too. Whereas I don't disagree with what Lachman says, I do have to take him with a grain of salt given his American Enterprise Institute affiliation. Without the ability to devalue, issue EU, or realistically re-price sovereign debt, the ECB didn't set out a sustainable path for the euro, especially when the ECB continually ignored members violating EU financial standards.

If Spain, or Ireland fall, since for both, as with Greece, the cure is worse than the illness, then it may well be a true domino effect for the currency. It seems unlikely that France would remain in the euro, without Germany, just because, well, they're French, and would not want to underwrite both Holland, and Belgium, especially Belgium, who's economy has chronically been in deficit. What Frenchman would want to pay money to keep the seat of the EU in Brussels?

The EU as a political federation of sovereign nations makes a lot more sense. With a traditional central bank, the euro could have been better equipped to withstand this crisis, but then the formation of the EU would have take twice as long.

 

[eurotop40]

FT has always been against the EU. Wishful thinking.

Financial Times today says that Greece must leave the Euro - it is a matter of when not if, and better for everyone if it is sooner.

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - Why Greece will have to leave the eurozone

This is how I see the EU develop post Lisbon:
* Greece leaves the Euro.
* Some or all of Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland leave and no new countries join.
* Anti-EU sentiment sweeps through many nations of Europe. Cameron becomes UK PM and the international focus of the anti-federalist agenda.
* The European institutions are held up to public scrutiny and found wanting. For example a leak publishes details of MEP's expenses.
* Germany leaves the Euro by appreciating out of a tarnished currency. The Euro is basically France plus Benelux.
* A new treaty is forthcoming with a new direction / third way - effectively a repeal both of Lisbon and of parts of earlier treaties. The core idea is a Europe of sovereign nations.

 

[mattflanders]

@Jason: keep on dreaming. The Euro is here to stay.
@duc10023: And the EU as a political federation of sovereign states is a contradictio in terminis. You're either a collection of sovereign states which is what Jason wants I guess, or you're a political federation, which is what I want.
Currently, the EU is neither.

The solution for the EU to me is more integration. Not a copy of what EFTA tried to be in the sixties.

(off-topic) Maybe us Belgians can send our Minister of Pensions to Greece, we'd be happy to send him their way. He's pure gold! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8453034.stm

 

[mitchymo]

I'm not 100% certain what i would like.

I have a fondness for remaining a seperate sovereign state but i also envisage a European Federation being a natural event some point down the line anyway. Standing in the way might just be time wasting really.

I know some people hate the idea of losing cultures and traditions which whilst unique to sovereign nations may dissappear under a unified government but the concept of 'coming together' is inspirational.

The closer we are together then the bigger our voice is and i quite like the idea of creating the biggest superpower in the world, one with far less corruption than Russia and with far less religious political interference than the States.

 

[eurotop40]

I honestly do not see how you could lose cultures and traditions. The EU is for instance VERY sensitive to language diversity, even if this is expensive (by the way, look at what Switzerland has been doing over a couple of centuries and you will find a good example). In particular, I do not see a inner European threat. Sure, British people might find the Greeks so-o-o-o different, but are they as different as - for instance - people from Irak? I doubt.
A further European integration is obviously not appealing to larger blocks, such as the US, Russia, China etc. That's why they play with the UK's uncertainties and come up with the "special relationship", just forgetting that the US were born as a republic right to get rid of the British.

I'm not 100% certain what i would like.

I have a fondness for remaining a seperate sovereign state but i also envisage a European Federation being a natural event some point down the line anyway. Standing in the way might just be time wasting really.

I know some people hate the idea of losing cultures and traditions which whilst unique to sovereign nations may dissappear under a unified government but the concept of 'coming together' is inspirational.

The closer we are together then the bigger our voice is and i quite like the idea of creating the biggest superpower in the world, one with far less corruption than Russia and with far less religious political interference than the States.

 

[798686]

And the EU as a political federation of sovereign states is a contradiction in terms. You're either a collection of sovereign states which is what Jason wants I guess, or you're a political federation, which is what I want.

I agree, you can only have one or the other. I personally would vastly prefer a collection of co-operating states, not a federation.

Maybe Greece will leave the euro, I'm not sure. What I tend to think will happen, is Brussels and the ECB will tighten control gradually - perhaps by taking control of the economies of one or more struggling states at some point, eg: Italy.

Also, if the conflict between federal and intergovernmental approaches can't be resolved (which I don't think it can) then I can see a smaller group of states forging ahead together with much greater political integration (Germany, France, Italy, Belgium?), leaving the others in a much looser EU grouping.

 

[mitchymo]

I honestly do not see how you could lose cultures and traditions. The EU is for instance VERY sensitive to language diversity, even if this is expensive (by the way, look at what Switzerland has been doing over a couple of centuries and you will find a good example). In particular, I do not see a inner European threat. Sure, British people might find the Greeks so-o-o-o different, but are they as different as - for instance - people from Irak? I doubt.
A further European integration is obviously not appealing to larger blocks, such as the US, Russia, China etc. That's why they play with the UK's uncertainties and come up with the "special relationship", just forgetting that the US were born as a republic right to get rid of the British.

Well you are right largely, i suppose what i mean is that if we move towards a European superstate then eventually we will have to let go of seperate currencies and conform to an official language taking precedence over national language. Eventually we will have to change our individual approaches to healthcare and welfare etc etc. It can be a very uncomfortable prospect when you value some of the things that work well on a national level. (i would'nt want to lose the NHS for example).

I am more pro european than anti european i will add.

 

[798686]

I am more pro european than anti european i will add.

But we're workin on ya. :wink:

Actually, not sure a United States of Europe would be that much less corrupt than USSR, or have less political interference than the US. It would certainly be a lot less democratic than the States, if the EU's track record of 'listening to the people' is anything to go by...

 

[mitchymo]

But we're workin on ya. :wink:

Actually, not sure a United States of Europe would be that much less corrupt than USSR, or have less political interference than the US. It would certainly be a lot less democratic than the States, if the EU's track record of 'listening to the people' is anything to go by...

It can only be i imagine a ridiculously difficult task to get Europe to listen when we can't even get our own government to listen.

We have to shout out our concerns and not be divided.

The very way in which our own democracy works divides us and stops us from achieving the best for all so being a part of a one Europe would be no worse as any initial downsides can be fixed after what would be called teething troubles.

Seriously, if any government is there to serve it's people like it supposed to be than it's about time the people had more power than box ticking to elect a political party that ultimately only represents part of the country.

I want to see, and i've said this before on other threads, an abolishion of party politics. I want a prime-minister voted for on popularity not because they lead the party that won the election that year. It is contemporary i know but if we elected a leader who we felt trustworthy regardless of political swing and the cabinet was selected by our mp's by voting in the house of commons instead of being selected by the pm we would have a cross party government that would HAVE to compromise and come to the fairest decisions. A cross party government is the only government that can ever reflect the society it represents. Time for change, oust party politics to focus on real change. The Conservatives go on about real change a lot but it will never happen when the government is made up of members from the same party. It will forever be their way or our way if either Tories or Labour win and it will just be a third way if Lib Dems won.

I wish i had the confidence to speak publicly and campaign to change the way we elect our leaders because the democracy that we live in is overdue a radical change for the better of all rather than those who just think the same way as the winners.

 

[eurotop40]

Are you sure the US is so democratic? and free? etc?

But we're workin on ya. :wink:

Actually, not sure a United States of Europe would be that much less corrupt than USSR, or have less political interference than the US. It would certainly be a lot less democratic than the States, if the EU's track record of 'listening to the people' is anything to go by...

 

[freyasworld]

Hitler tried to have a united europe, the only difference now is we have a un-democratically elected dictator.

Politicians are only interested in scamming theiving lying and robbing people, their only quest is to hold on to power in order to keep their fingers in the pot! They will say or do anything if it gets them re-elected.

They can't argree on anything locally, let alone nationally, then we expect these lieing power crazed theiving baffoons to be able to agree with other countries....not a hope in hell!

Europe will be a lose collection of independant states, all positioning themselves to get biggest payout! So the same politicians will be lieing cheating, theiving and scamming from other states!

 

[123scotty]

Hitler tried to have a united europe, the only difference now is we have a un-democratically elected dictator.

Politicians are only interested in scamming theiving lying and robbing people, their only quest is to hold on to power in order to keep their fingers in the pot! They will say or do anything if it gets them re-elected.

They can't argree on anything locally, let alone nationally, then we expect these lieing power crazed theiving baffoons to be able to agree with other countries....not a hope in hell!

Europe will be a lose collection of independant states, all positioning themselves to get biggest payout! So the same politicians will be lieing cheating, theiving and scamming from other states!

hmmmm are you one of those unbiased positive looking tabloid news reporters.
and yes i think i heard about hitlers democratic european tour. but i think some people didnt think the tour was very democratic

 

[Jason]

There are tides within Europe that we cannot hope to stand against.

The biggest one is markets, and you just can't buck them. The Euro is in deep trouble. That emphatically doesn't mean that it is going to crash - indeed an appreciation is at least as likely as a depreciation. But it is a one-size fits all currency that simply isn't fitting. The world has seen plenty of indisoluble currency unions that break and the Euro is looking like the next one.

Right now we are seeing the tide turning. The Lisbon Treaty represents the high point. There isn't another treaty under discussion right now. The Euro has problems. There's a lot of Euro-scepticism in many countries, not just the UK.

There are real advantages in the EU - peace, stability, economic development, reunification - but there are real disadvantages - loss of democracy, unwelcome loss of national identity, now a flawed and failing economic model. Basically the EU is now too big and too diverse to offer democratic accountability. A few years ago the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. Now the balance has changed, at least for the periphery nations. The FT has never been much of an enthusiast for EU economics (as pointed out above) as it prints the views of some of the leading economic brains who are aware of the fundamental problems.

Right now every Euro-sceptic could undergo a change of heart and start supporting the EU and it would only delay the inevitable. The tide has changed. Just as it has come in fast in the last decade or so, so it will now go out fast.

 

[mattflanders]

There are real advantages in the EU - peace, stability, economic development, reunification - but there are real disadvantages - loss of democracy, unwelcome loss of national identity, now a flawed and failing economic model. Basically the EU is now too big and too diverse to offer democratic accountability. A few years ago the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. Now the balance has changed, at least for the periphery nations.

I'm sorry but if you even come close to thinking that even a country like the UK would be better off without the EU, you're wrong, especially now with the credit crunch.
If it weren't for the EU's internal market and trade policies, every country would have put up barriers for foreign products, every country would have devalued its currency and we'd be stuck in another 1929 and a decade like the 30s.

Do you feel any less British or whatever other British national identity you might have, just because of the EU? I bet you don't. Do I feel any less Flemish because of the EU, no I don't, but I'm a European as well.
And the big evil Lisbon Treaty gives the European parliament a vote on almost every policy area.

I'm not an economist so I can't really evaluate if the EU's economic model is failing or not, but I am a political scientist, specialized in EU politics. And once you study the EU's politics, it becomes very hard to remain eurosceptic.

 

[798686]

I wish i had the confidence to speak publicly and campaign to change the way we elect our leaders because the democracy that we live in is overdue a radical change for the better of all rather than those who just think the same way as the winners.

Don't see why you couldn't Sir Mitchy of Mod!

I think it's a radical but good idea to have an un-aligned Prime Minister. Kinda like the President in some countries I guess? (Thinking Czech Republic, etc - but maybe I'm wrong?). The cons haven't occurred to me yet, tho...
Having a cross-party government is interesting for a while, but I'm not sure how it would work in the long-term, because how would you vote out a government that you disagreed with if it was made up of all the parties? You'd end up with a situation like in the EU, where the same view prevails no matter what.

As far as the EU hearing ppl is concerned, I think the will of the ppl was quite evident over Lisbon, but was overruled consciously by the EU and national governments... :frown1: