New Era Dawns for EU

[798686]

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.

How objective is the EU politics course you're studying? Does it investigate all the disadvantages as well as teaching views the EU would like to put across? A lot of EU courses are EU funded, so they're going to have a pro-EU bias (your course might not be like that, but it's worth bearing in mind).

 

[798686]

Now the balance has changed, at least for the periphery nations.

I agree it's not working so well for all. That's partly why I think we may see an inner core at some point - so those that want federation can get the single economic and political government necessary to make the Euro work...just not sure all countries would go for it. UK wouldn't, I'm sure...

 

[Jason]

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.

You can find an economic argument from a reputable economist to support any political view you might put forward. There are good (though not universally agreed) economic arguments for the following:

• In economic terms (alone) Germany should leave the Euro.
• In economic terms (alone) Greece is now likely to be forced out of the Euro and Greece will do better economically out than in.
• In economic terms (alone) Italy, Spain and Portugal would probably do better out than in. Query Ireland.
• Right now it is economically unthinkable for Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary to join the Euro (as they are legally obliged). Sweden, Poland and the Czech Republic may be possible.
• The Euro is an economic construct to further political ends. Economically it is unstable without integration of all EU domestic policy, ie a single state. Because politics have pushed matters against economic caution we are likely to see a situation where the end game is messy.

In economic terms, continued membership of the EU as it stands is more problematic. There have been costings for the UK leaving the EU and they are as variable as the groups that have commissioned them. Those who argue it would be a disaster cannot deliver the knock out economic argument to support their views. A synthesis may be on the lines that the process would need to be managed carefully but that ultimately costs and benefits to the UK would be about the same - economically the policy is neutral. It is likely that at least some other EU nations would find a similar position for their own economies.

The arguments for the Euro and the EU are now fundamentally political, not economic. Given the democratic defecit whereby half a billion people feel impotent to influence the politics of Europe we have a form of government emerging which has been called "democracy without the demos". This may be acceptable. Europe has a history of electing dictators and we might be better off restricting the freedoms of the people to make decisions. I'm not entirely joking - democracy has real problems. But lets be clear, we are now looking at a political process which is redefining what is meant by dmocracy. People can vote - but the evidence of Lisbon is only if they vote as the masters want. People can vote for MEPs - but most of them de facto sit in the same coalition so it makes no difference.

Really it is about trust. Do we trust the politicians who are governing Europe? In the UK as in all EU countries we can vote out our leaders. But we the people have no power whatsoever to vote out the Grand Coalition, or to determine who does all the plum jobs. All the decisions are taken for us by the Eurocrats with negligible check from democratic processes or the institutions of a free society. Now the Eurocrats are clever and they are well meaning. And democracy is messy. But the question remains: do we trust now and for ever more our democratically unaccountable leaders of the nascent European superstate?

 

[Jason]

How objective is the EU politics course you're studying? Does it investigate all the disadvantages as well as teaching views the EU would like to put across? A lot of EU courses are EU funded, so they're going to have a pro-EU bias (your course might not be like that, but it's worth bearing in mind).

Many academic posts in EU universities (including UK) are part-funded by the EU to reflect a European dimension.The practice is common in politics, economics, history, languages, law and lots more. The EU requires syllabus changes/modifications to reflect the European dimension. For universities it is extra money. Often for the lecturers concerned there is a small quantity of money they can use for something they want to do, either a small reduction in teaching or a conference budget. Few lecturers would say no to teaching the European dimension of their subject. Few students are aware of this influence on their courses.

It has to be said national governments also influence course content - though in the UK there is a reasonably robust tradition of academic freedom.

 

[798686]

Yeh, it does smack of propaganda to me. Especially since it also applies to radio and tv programmes.
Plus, aren't there plans to teach standardised european history in EU schools? Not sure which version it'd be...

The Euro is an economic construct to further political ends. Economically it is unstable without integration of all EU domestic policy, ie a single state. Because politics have pushed matters against economic caution we are likely to see a situation where the end game is messy.

I'd agree with this.

But the question remains: do we trust now and for ever more our democratically unaccountable leaders of the nascent European superstate?

No, we don't. You should never trust people without proper checks and balances. Especially not powerful leaders of a European superstate, who haven't arrived on the scene yet...

 

[Jason]

Right now professional historians throughout Europe are being encouraged to see the European dimension of each aspect of history (because these are the projects that get funded). So for example if you want to write about the history of Scotland as a nation among the nations of Europe you will find funding available. If you want to write about Anglo-Scots relations, forget it. Ditto for every nation of Europe. Now of course the place of Scotland with respect to other European nations is important - but Anglo-Scots relations is the absolute backbone of Scottish history.

We are seeing a generation of historians whose specialism is nation X in a European context, and this is becoming the established view of history. The EU also stresses the role of women in every age - yet the overwhelming majority of leaders were men. There is oodles of funding for gender-based literature study. Want a course on Women writers of the Middle Ages? Good old EU will fund.

 

[798686]

Enid Blyton was the only one wasn't she?

Seriously tho, encouraging a skewed view of things, is a bit worrying...

 

[mattflanders]

Oh come on! One of the bases of the social sciences is the fact that you are constantly aware of bias. And I'm very aware of the fact that there's always a scientist whose arguments you can use to defend your opinion.

The one thing a lot of people seem to forget is path dependency.

And you have to realize that most history taught in schools now is written in the 19th century, lots of it made up to legitimate the nation states.

 

[Jason]

I know a lecturer who had to show his syllabus reflected women writers, which is an EU directive. He was teaching Medieval English Literature. He filled in a form to say "The Wife of Bath's Tale" was by a woman (it is by a man, Geoffrey Chaucer). He also decided that all anon authors of the Middle Ages had a 50/50 chance of being female and decided that "Beowulf" might be by a woman.

I hadn't really thought about it, but the EU influence on syllabus at university level is enormous.

 

[ubered]

Many academic posts in EU universities (including UK) are part-funded by the EU to reflect a European dimension.The practice is common in politics, economics, history, languages, law and lots more. The EU requires syllabus changes/modifications to reflect the European dimension. For universities it is extra money. Often for the lecturers concerned there is a small quantity of money they can use for something they want to do, either a small reduction in teaching or a conference budget. Few lecturers would say no to teaching the European dimension of their subject. Few students are aware of this influence on their courses.

Agreed. But it doesn't just affect what they teach. I do research at a university here in Spain and know people for whom EU research funding is a sore issue. For example in history, grants are issued by the EU for research on the basis of their making links between seemingly unrelated parts of the EU. So you're researching the history of pre-Roman northern Spain, you have to show some kind of link with the rest of Europe if you want the money. With the lack of other funding sources for areas like history or archaeology, EU funding is a major temptation. Stipulations like these make the academic community very uncomfortable, as we're well aware that it's tantamount to creating history à la carte.

It has to be said national governments also influence course content - though in the UK there is a reasonably robust tradition of academic freedom.

There is, but in the UK (at least when I was at school), many subjects were about creating a sense of national identity over a real understanding of the dynamics. History, is again a great example. It tended to focus on periods that make Britain look good, and usually jumped from the Romans to the Tudors to WW1, Stalin and WW2. It's plucky little Britain standing up against the world. No focus on colonialism, the highland clearances, Ireland or anything that might involve real questioning or a critical view of nationhood.

 

[mattflanders]

Actually there's a big chance that a lot of works were actually written by women. The Brontë sisters still used male pseudonyms in the 19th century. So why not fund research on this subject?

 

[798686]

And you have to realize that most history taught in schools now is written in the 19th century, lots of it made up to legitimate the nation states.

True, but now it's being written to legitimise the EU. Surely we should be moving into a more critical, objective age?
I didn't mean to criticise your course quite so much, sorry - I was just trying to highlight the EU influence in education which alters how it's taught. :redface:

Ubered - both points are true. I'm worried that academics are being encouraged to distort findings, or presentation of facts to back up the EU-myth.

Also, it would've been better to teach Brit history with the pros and cons...I've only recently found out about the Highland clearances myself.

Oddly (and off topic sorry), the Bible (OT) seems to be one instance where a nation writes the bad events experienced/perpetrated by it, as well as the positive ones...

 

[Jason]

The one thing a lot of people seem to forget is path dependency.

A very good point.

It is neo-classical economics that suggests that the Euro project and even the EU itself is economically flawed and that the outcome is inevitable.

Of course we do have path dependency theory applied to economics where some minor "noise" can disrupt the path set out by the neo-classical model. A reader of the politics thread on LPSG changes their mind. They are in a marginal constituency and their vote really counts, and there is a different government as a result. A real example is the Florida vote in the US presidential election GWB won where you can argue that a handful of doubtful votes (many seemingly by the least educated) changed the history of the world. What the EU politicians are trying to do is manage the "noise" to make their vision of the Euro and the EU work despite the problems identified by the neo-classical model.

The danger with a path dependency approach is that politicians think they can buck the system. No more boom and bust. Acceptance of incredible national debts. Everything will be resolved through a political process. The "noise" can be managed to pull off the miracle solution. The Eurocrats really believe this. The Eurocrats in Athens in the weekend think they can buck the markets that are running against Greece. Their self-belief is enormous. Gordon Brown really believes he can win the next UK election. He's probably the only one in the world who does, but nothing will shake his belief. And path dependency gives the possibility that there will be some random act with an unexpected consequence. Greece will strike oil in the Aegean. The Martians will use mind control to make the people of the UK vote for Gordon Brown. It does sometimes happen. George W Bush won an election he probably should have lost.

 

[mattflanders]

True, but now it's being written to legitimise the EU. Surely we should be moving into a more critical, objective age?

We should be, you're absolutely right. I'm also against (ab)using funding to legitimize ones own views, but the European dimension is still a very important one and shouldn't be ignored.

 

[mattflanders]

What the EU politicians are trying to do is manage the "noise" to make their vision of the Euro and the EU work despite the problems identified by the neo-classical model.

Exactly, the neo-classical model. A normative model, not a descriptive model.

 

[Jason]

Actually there's a big chance that a lot of works were actually written by women. The Brontë sisters still used male pseudonyms in the 19th century. So why not fund research on this subject?

Give me the money and I'll do it! :biggrin1:

 

[798686]

Don't really know much about path dependency (ie: never heard of it :frown1, but based on Jason's post, the one unexpected occurrence I can think of, is where the Madrid bombings in 2004 brought about an unexpected change of government in Spain, 'just in time' for them to do a policy u-turn and back the constitution.

However, the EU generally uses unexpected events ('beneficial crises') as a pretext for 'more Europe'.

 

[ubered]

Don't really know much about path dependency (ie: never heard of it :frown1, but based on Jason's post, the one unexpected occurrence I can think of, is where the Madrid bombings in 2004 brought about an unexpected change of government in Spain, 'just in time' for them to do a policy u-turn and back the constitution.

However, the EU generally uses unexpected events ('beneficial crises') as a pretext for 'more Europe'.

There was no policy u-turn in Spain on the treaty. The PP was in favour, and would have held the referendum and encouraged a yes vote even if the PSOE hadn't won the elections.

Actually, this is something that maybe people in the UK aren't so aware of. Being eurosceptic in Spain is not a right wing stance. All the parties against the treaty and critical of the EU's democratic deficit are national or regional nationalist left wing (Izquierda Unida, Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya, Iniciativa per Catalunya Verds, Eusko Alkartasuna) as well as trade unions not sold out to the PSOE.

 

[mattflanders]

@joll: Path dependency means that once a decision is taken to go into one direction, it's very hard to change that direction. So, u-turns are very hard to take.
For example: EU-membership for Turkey. In the past we've said yes, so we had to start negotiations, etc etc and it has become very hard to say no now.

Well, the EU usually uses the bad crises as a reason for more Europe. The beneficial unexpected events are usually a pretext for the members states to keep things as they are.

 

[798686]

Cheers Matt - yup it makes sense that it's harder to change a current direction rather than keep the status quo.

Uber - Ahh, ok. The way it came across in the UK (to me anyway) was that Spain under Aznar was wavering over the constitution, so when the bombs had the effect of propelling Zapatero to power, he immediately backed the constitution, and strongly stated Spain's commitment to the EU. Whereas Aznar had been more Atlanticist.