The EU

[Dak]

im intruigued: given that it's unique and odd, and in the middle of forming/growing, why we dont get more discussion on the eu in here? i'd have thought it'd be an interesting conversational piece.

 

so... the eu, discuss, i guess.

 

btw, to get the ball rolling, and another reason i find the lack of interest odd: if all the member states of the eu are combined (as may possibly be the case in the future) and compared to the us, the eu has a better economy and greater spending power, better relations with the rest of the world, and, i suspect, a more powerful army and better R&D base. so, if the eu becomes a fully-fledged supernation, would it not displace the us as the majour world ultrasuper power?

[the tree]

That is a very big if, the EU is purely about regulating money related matters, trade and employment and such. It cannot get involved in the millitary or anything else outside it's remit.

 

Even if it could, imagine the outcry, it's a continent full of nationalists, there's no way that a country of Europe could happen.

 

And maybe the reason it doesn't get disccussed here is because this forum is largely American.

[gcol]

Even if it could, imagine the outcry, it's a continent full of nationalists, there's no way that a country of Europe could happen.

 

And maybe the reason it doesn't get disccussed here is because this forum is largely American.

 

Agree.

 

And was not the original america a continent full of statists, fighting local civil wars, and was it not necessary to to employ ethnic cleansing to rid the continent of the troublesome original inhabitants?

 

And then a murderous country-wide civil war was necessary to shoehorn all those round pegs into a federal square hole.

 

The EU is an entirely different animal, although there does seem to be a hidden agenda moving towards european federalism. This creeping federalism is why I am a Europhobe.

 

Free trade? Yes. Reduction of the threat of another war? Yes. The creation of a monolithic european superstate? No thanks.

[Dak]

That is a very big if, the EU is purely about regulating money related matters, trade and employment and such. It cannot get involved in the millitary or anything else outside it's remit.

 

not so. the eu has/is getting it's own military, sort of:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Rapid_Reaction_Force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Agency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroups

 

as i read it, the EU also currently has access to some NATO resorses, in some manner. linky

 

it also deals with lots of non-money stuff, like free-travel/right to work in any of the member countries/immagration, energy-supply, international-policing, human rights, etc.

 

methinks your thinking of the EEC (european economic community), which is part of the eu. (also, apparently distinct from it; some countries are members of the eec but not the eu, but i dont think you can be a member of the eu without being a member of the eec).

 

Even if it could, imagine the outcry, it's a continent full of nationalists, there's no way that a country of Europe could happen.

 

i think thats sort of what the constitution thingy was supposed to do/be the first step towards, and yeah, lots of people didn't like it.

 

And maybe the reason it doesn't get disccussed here is because this forum is largely American.

 

[accent=american] europe? is that near montana? [/accent]

 

sorry

 

Free trade? Yes. Reduction of the threat of another war? Yes. The creation of a monolithic european superstate? No thanks.

 

why not?

[gcol]

[quote=Dak;

 

why not?

 

Because as any woman will tell you, and luckily for many men, biggest is seldom best.

[Ophiolite]

methinks your thinking of the EEC (european economic community), which is part of the eu. (also, apparently distinct from it; some countries are members of the eec but not the eu, but i dont think you can be a member of the eu without being a member of the eec).

The EEC no longer exists. It became the EC (European Community) as part of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. A fuller discussion of the the various European Union/Community relationships may be found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Community

 

Someone above referred to a hidden agenda to move Europe towards a federal monolith. There is nothing hidden about the agenda. Many of those who are in favour of the economic cooperation (it was orignally called the Common Market, in English) are appalled by the efforts at one-size-fits-all political integration.

Even if one is in favour of this development the abrogration of rights to commissioners, rather than to a duly elected parliament, mean that Europe is heading towards a de facto oligarchy. This should form the basis of any meaningful discussion about the EU.

[Dak]

i thought the eec was part of the ec? which is part of the eu?

 

tsk. i think i've answred my own question on why this isn't discussed: the eu is bloody complicated. the more i read, the less i actually understand it.

 

Even if one is in favour of this development the abrogration of rights to commissioners, rather than to a duly elected parliament, mean that Europe is heading towards a de facto oligarchy

 

not that i neccesarily subscribe to 'democracy = best', but isn't it democratic by proxy? the comissioners, if im understanding to who you are reffering correctly, are elected by the people that represent the states, who are themselves elected by the people of those states.

 

isn't accusing it of oligarchy similar to arguing that the uk is undemocratic on account of the fact that our elected PM gets to choose the cabinate? no one voted the minister of transport into that position; however, the person who chose him was voted in, so it's still democratic.

[Ophiolite]

The Minister of Transport is accountable to Parliament, and specifically to the House of Commons. The House still has real power, though it has been diluted by the actions of Blair and Thatcher. They can and have called Minister's to account, with the result that said Minister's have been forced to resign. Such actions are often taken by the House as a result of prompting by the public (typically, but not always through the media).

 

In constrast the European Parliament has very little power and, zero visibility. What you say is in theory true. In practice the Commissioners do what they or their 'sponsors' are in favour of without fear of being called to serious account. This is oligarchy by the back door.

 

Now if we were to give the Parliament real power, with the Commissioners acting as the executors of that power as directed by relevant committees,then you would have something that would be democratic and more importantly would also work.

[gcol]

Someone above referred to a hidden agenda to move Europe towards a federal monolith.

 

That was me. I said that because the move towards an oligarchic megalith/monolith is not obvious to many people (possibly because they dont understand what it means).

 

It seems to be a bureaucratic monster with the thinnest of democratic veneer on it sufficient to fool enough people for as long as it takes until it is too late to reverse out of it. Handcuffed forever to the Napoleonic dream. Just how democratic was that? It wont be as easy to banish the new monster to the Isle Of Elba.

[Dak]

im not convinced your fears are entirely founded, ophiolite.

 

as i read it, the democratically elected european parlement (MEPs) have the following powers:

 

power to amend most legislature, can veto almost all.

 

power to deny apointment of president of comissioners

 

power to deny formation of comision (en mass: all the proposed comissioners are ok, or none are)

 

power to force the entire commision to resign (in '99, it threatened to use it, and so the commision resigned of it's own accord -- pretty much analogouse to the minister for transport )

 

forms the budget (must be approved by the counsil).

 

but, whilst they can amend legislature, and can veto it, they can't actually 'initiate'; hence, descisions seem to be -- and i might be a bit shaky on this -- but it appears that, usually, the initial descision to do something/legislate is made by the commision, ok'd and sometimes modified by the parliment, and then enacted and possibly sometimes modified by the counsil, thus giving the parliment quite a bit of power, espescially in a 'democratically elected keeping an eye on things' role, even tho their initiative is non-existant.

 

the constitution would have apparently extended their powers to both veto/amend almost all legislature, and completely control the budget.

[-Demosthenes-]

[accent=american'] europe? is that near montana? [/accent]

 

Americans don't have accents

 

I'm reading a book about creating a world government right now (Shadow of the Giant by Card). It's a very interesting idea. If you've ever read the series, apparently the secret to getting everyone to except a world government is the fear of aliens (the space kind)

[Severian]

I used to be a big supporter of the EU. Then I spent a few years living in France and Germany. Now I think it should be scrapped.

[PhDP]

I used to be a big supporter of the EU. Then I spent a few years living in France and Germany. Now I think it should be scrapped.

 

Why ?

[Severian]

Because I saw it for what it really is - an undemocratic institution that imposes its will on democratically elected governments, places unnatural barriers on free trade, and makes integration more difficult.

 

I am not opposed to the EU in principle - I am only opposed to its current implementation, which I think acheives the exact opposite of what it was intented to acheive.

 

For example, look at the common agricultural policy. Can that truely be a reasonable way to encourage free trade? Of course not - it is an unnatural barrier to the the trade of EU farmers outside France.

 

Look at EU regulations. Some of them are very reasonable (and some of them are none of their damn business) but if you are going to have EU wide regulations, they need to be enforced EU wide. Living in France I would routinely see examples of violations of law and fair-trade agreements - the French authorities just didn't care. They don't enforce the regulations, so the regulations become a barrier to goods from countries where regulations are enforced.

 

For example, the local video store where I lived would rent out US versions of DVDs long before they were released in Europe. Sometimes you could get them before they were even out at the cinema. They were obviously bought in the US and shipped over. They would all have an into warning telling the viewer that they were 'not for rental' and to contact the authorities to report misuse, but no-one cared. The DVD hire store was on the town's main street!

 

Or how about all the problems I had getting my car registered in France? BMW had issued me with an 'EU' version of the road worthiness certificate (MOT). I was quite please because (I thought) it meant that I would have no problems anywhere in Europe. But no, the French authorities told me that I needed the French version and refused to let me import my car! I had to go back to BMW and get a French version, which took forever and a day.

 

Another example is regulations for selling food. I am fairly au fait with the regulations in the UK imposed by the EU. For example, meat products on display are required to have a continual flow of cold air passing over them. The counters which do this are expensive, but it seems fair enough to avoid spreading diseases. But go to the market in France, and you will see meat sitting out in the open air on a warm day, covered in flies. Once again, they don't bother to enforce the regulations.

 

It is the same with other safety regulations. British manufacturers need to pass stringent safety tests before being allowed to sell their goods in the EU. But French authorities do not enforce these regulations on their manufacturers. This is not so apparent when living in the UK because then they are screened by UK authorities, but you really see it when living on the continent.

 

And it is not just France. In Germany, after working their for two years (forone of their governent labs) I found out that I would not be given any pension credit for my time there. They told me that I would have been given a pension previously, but the regulations had changed under the EU, and now I was expected to be given the pension by the UK government, which is significantly lower.

 

What about student funding? We give stipends to UK citizens doing PhDs in the UK, but we withold that funding from EU citizens from outside the UK. So it is very diffuclt for us to take non-UK EU students. Isn't this the sort of thing the EU should be sorting out? Why doesn't it?

 

By contrast, where they do make an effort to sort it out, they **** it up. There are grants available for postdocs to come to the UK from other UK countries. But they EU politicians in Brussels clearly have no idea how scientists are paid. They set the EU funding rates so high that the EU funded postdocs are paid more than the professors (for US readers, in the UK the term 'professor' is only applied to the most senior staff - more junior tenured staff are 'lecturers' or 'readers'). This causes a lot of resentment in UK universities.

 

I could go on and on about the things I have seen that make me think we would be better off without the EU...

[gcol]

I agree in principle with Severian. There are many more examples that annoy me. As originally envisaged and sold, it was a good thing. It has evolved into a bad thing. It is now a career oportunity for bureaucratic jobsworths.

 

I have the gut feeling that it is evolving into a control and command system. Was that not communism? The old unreconstructed left wingers and fellow travellers I have known were all in favour of the European union, as they saw it as essentially an anti-capitalist system. Certainly the restrictive measures pouring out of Brussels dont in practice make trade any easier, even though their own publicity strives to say the opposite. Since when did an army of entrenched penpushers understand the real needs of enterprise?

 

By the way, the latest edict is that it will be illegal to make any references to systems other than metric. This will please some, but guess who is making the biggest protest? The U.S. because it will be inconvenient and costly for their industry. So for once I say "Go, U.S.A.!

[Red_Ninja]

I have the gut feeling that it is evolving into a control and command system. Was that not communism?

 

Not if you read Marx.

 

Seriously though, folks - subjective accounts of various EU related 'experiences' don't add up to a convincing argument. Look at the sheer quantity of trade taking place between EU nations and then knock down the EU and add tariffs to all that.

 

Most anti-EU people are staunch nationalists even if they refuse to admit it.

[Severian]

Seriously though, folks - subjective accounts of various EU related 'experiences' don't add up to a convincing argument. Look at the sheer quantity of trade taking place between EU nations and then knock down the EU and add tariffs to all that.

 

You don't need to have the EU to have no trade tariffs.

 

Most anti-EU people are staunch nationalists even if they refuse to admit it.

 

Considering I am married to a German, have lived in France and Germany, and work with many foreign nationals, I don't think anyone would ever call me a nationalist. I would be happy with an EU governement as long as it was democratically elected and half-way competent.

 

However, I also think that many governmental duties are best performed at a local level.

[Dak]

indeed. im actually quite anti-eu, but i am certainly not nationalistic, and intend to move to germany soon for about a year, just for the experience of living in a foreighn country (not that i need to prove im not nationalistic, but there you are).

 

having said that: severian, your accounts dont neccesarily indicate incompetence rather than toothing problems.

 

the eu (or at lest the organisations/pacts that the eu is formed on) have also achieved alot -- free trade/common market, for example; international cooperation in policing matters; even the pention thing that has annoyed you is, i believe, part of shingen -- a policy that guarentees you your right to live and work in germany, and for your german wife to move to the uk with you, and for you/your wife to draw from the state (get medical treatment, for example) reguardless of where you were born/are currently residing, and also smooths over potential problems -- you pay tax etc to a european state, and a european state provides for you, with medical care, doll, pention etc, even if the providing state != the state to which you payed tax. it's not really the eu's fault that british pentions are tighter than german ones (actually, i believe theres some pressure on the germans to lower the pentions their country).

 

as for democratic: it's got the european (democratic) parliment in order to ceep checks on the non-democratically elected parts, which, anyway, are chosen by democratically elected people. personally, i think that fully seperating the executive and legeslative branches from the democratic aspects might actually go a long way to ameliorating some of the downfalls of democrasys (a tendancy towards petty beurocracy and 'weekness': the need to pander to people) whilst keeping the main benifits (limits on what can and kannot be done -- ultimately, the majority cannot be the servants of a ruling minority).

 

surely, the human rights aspects and the democracy that exists are sufficient to prevent this actually becoming an oligarchy/beurocratic despotism?

 

I have the gut feeling that it is evolving into a control and command system. Was that not communism?

 

no. communism is essentially state-controlled trade in order to fully protect consumers from predetory buisnesses, and to ensure that buisnesses exist to serve their enployers and customers, rather than their owners, and that percieved essential services -- medical, insurance, legal representation, public transport etc -- are provided for free (or, at least, publically funded).

 

the control and command aspect was present in the russian communism, but isn't technically part of communism, any more than democracy is part of capatalism, even tho the biggest and most famouse example of a capatilist state -- the us -- is democratic; you can have democratic comunisms and despotic capatalisms.

 

anyhoo... the eu requires, for membership, that, amongst other things:

 

the state is democratic.

 

the state has a liberal economic market (comunism being the way in which you could most totally fail to meet this requirement)

 

have stable mechanisms to preserve above two thingies.

 

so, fears that the eu is 'undemocratic' or 'communistic' are somwhat unfounded, i feel.

[Severian]

having said that: severian, your accounts dont neccesarily indicate incompetence rather than toothing problems.

 

the eu (or at lest the organisations/pacts that the eu is formed on) have also achieved alot -- free trade/common market

 

But that was my point - it is not a free market. And I could get a free market without the EU. All I need is an economic treaty, not a political one.

 

for example; international cooperation in policing matters; even the pention thing that has annoyed you is, i believe, part of shingen

 

Without the EU, I would have been paid the money that had gone into my pension. With the EU I lost it. Why should I regard this as good?

 

-- a policy that guarentees you your right to live and work in germany, and for your german wife to move to the uk with you,

 

I was employed by the German government, so I would have been welcomed into Germany without the EU.

 

and for you/your wife to draw from the state (get medical treatment, for example) reguardless of where you were born/are currently residing,

 

My wife would have had access to the NHS pre-EU too. Not that the NHS is any use, but that is another issue.

 

and also smooths over potential problems -- you pay tax etc to a european state, and a european state provides for you, with medical care, doll, pention etc, even if the providing state != the state to which you payed tax.

 

This is not true. I pay my money to the state I am living in, not the EU. And as I pointed out, my pension could not be transfered back to the UK, so I just lose the money.

 

it's not really the eu's fault that british pentions are tighter than german ones (actually, i believe theres some pressure on the germans to lower the pentions their country).

 

It has nothing to do with the German state pension - this was a pension paid to me by the organisation I was working with, and normally I would expect to collect that pension no matter where I was living. The EU had actually restricted the pensions market.

 

as for democratic: it's got the european (democratic) parliment in order to ceep checks on the non-democratically elected parts, which, anyway, are chosen by democratically elected people. personally, i think that fully seperating the executive and legeslative branches from the democratic aspects might actually go a long way to ameliorating some of the downfalls of democrasys (a tendancy towards petty beurocracy and 'weekness': the need to pander to people) whilst keeping the main benifits (limits on what can and kannot be done -- ultimately, the majority cannot be the servants of a ruling minority).

 

It is a bit far fetched to suggest that the EU is better off because its leaders are not democratically accountable. I couldn't even name my MEP, and they have no power anyway.

[gcol]

Most anti-EU people are staunch nationalists even if they refuse to admit it.

 

Since when has staunch nationalist become a sneering term of logical dismissal? You seem to use it as freely as you would Nazi, Fascist, and even fundamentalist. Until you tear up your passport and disown your own country, you are one too.

[Pangloss]

Severian, "free market" is not the same thing as cheating on free trade. Sure you love it when your government drops billions into unrepayable subsidies to let European businesses compete with American ones, but when we do the same you get all upity and sue us in the WTO. (There are more complaints against the US in the WTO than against the EU.)

 

You want free trade, you have to deal with the issues that come with that, not ignore them.

[Dak]

But that was my point - it is not a free market. And I could get a free market without the EU. All I need is an economic treaty, not a political one.

 

how is it not a free market?

 

and yes, the eec was all that was neccesary for the free market. but its still part of the consept of the eu. you could have just it, but the argument is that the underlining concept -- a united europe -- is benificial in all areas.

 

Without the EU, I would have been paid the money that had gone into my pension. With the EU I lost it. Why should I regard this as good?[...]

 

I was employed by the German government, so I would have been welcomed into Germany without the EU[...]

 

My wife would have had access to the NHS pre-EU too. Not that the NHS is any use, but that is another issue

 

agree with last two points (at least for the uk nhs).

 

obviously this is less relevent to you, as you were actually employed (presumably) by the german govournments phisics research thing, but is more applicable/useful to others.

 

This is not true. I pay my money to the state I am living in, not the EU.

 

was my point. if you live in the uk, and pay taxes, and dont draw from the state, then move to germany and get hit by a bus and need extensive medical treatment and doll, then:

 

1/ you dont winge that you payed the uk loads of money without getting anything in return

 

2/ the german govournment doens't winge that it's having to pay out more for you than you've payed in tax.

 

It has nothing to do with the German state pension - this was a pension paid to me by the organisation I was working with, and normally I would expect to collect that pension no matter where I was living. The EU had actually restricted the pensions market.

 

ah, thats different. i can't really see how that's good in any way, shape, or form: private pentions should be private, not state controlled. hence private pention. and not state pention.

 

not really sure what's going on there.

 

It is a bit far fetched to suggest that the EU is better off because its leaders are not democratically accountable. I couldn't even name my MEP, and they have no power anyway.

 

that's not what i was saying. the leaders aren't directly democratically voted for, but they are democratic by proxy (being chosen by democratically elected leaders, making them as 'undemocratic' as any minister), and are accountable to -- and generally require permission to act from -- the democratically elected european parliment.

 

what i said was that they benifit from not being directly involved with/hindered by the democratic process.

 

democracys, whilst having many good points, unarguably have bad points. popularity/charisma is more likely to get you elected than actual competence for a start, and you become week, having to do any hair-brained thing that enough people want you to do just to get re-elected. transparancy becomes difficult, as a wize but unpopular desision will lower your chances of re-election; opaqueness limits ones ability to make an informed desision, and compounds the 'popularity competition' problems of democracys.

 

by distancing the executive and legeslative branches, they are somewhat freed from this failing. i can't see the eu being run by carismatic, yet incompetent, people, and nor can i see the leaders enacting stupid schemes just because lots of people want them to; transparancy becomes theoryoretically achievable (tho, imo, they are not currently being fully transparent).

 

however, there is a democratic element, which is perfectly positioned to prevent the leaders from being:

 

too incompetent

insane

evil

despotic

 

which is all that's really required of a democracy, when you get right down to it. it's neccesary for the administration, execution, legeslation etc to be done, but not neccesarily democratically; the only thing that democracy offers above other current forms of govournance is safety, and i feel the democracy in the eu is sufficient to provide that.

 

tbh, im actually relieved that the actual running of the eu isn't done by people who's only qualification is the ability to persuade people to vote for them.

 

in short: they are democratically accountable for big things (such as breaches of human rights, overall competence, etc) but not for little things (individual choices), so you wont (hopefully) get the phenomena whereby they are forced into action by public oppinion.

 

furthermore: its your fault you can't name your local MEPs, not the eu's; i can't name my local MP, which doesnt say all that much about the UK govournment; and, as allready mentioned, the european parlement does have power, has used it (including its ultimate power), and is roadmapped to get more.

[Skye]

My feeling is that Europe became the most powerful region by opening up trade with the world through shipping routes from ~1500 on. The Common Market (et al.) seems to limit that trade.

[Severian]

was my point. if you live in the uk, and pay taxes, and dont draw from the state, then move to germany and get hit by a bus and need extensive medical treatment and doll, then:

 

1/ you dont winge that you payed the uk loads of money without getting anything in return

 

2/ the german govournment doens't winge that it's having to pay out more for you than you've payed in tax.

 

That's not true. I would be given emergency care in Germany if I were hit by a car, but that is not anything to do with the EU - I would get the same in the US. Then I would be shipped back to the UK for treatment once I was stable. You would only get treated in Germany if you have health insurance.

 

Similarly I would not be eligible for unemployment benefit in Germany (is that what you mean by 'doll'?) and a German would not be eligible here. If I wanted to move to Germany when I was 65 I would not be eligible to collect a pension, except for the 2 years I worked there.

[Dak]

That's not true. I would be given emergency care in Germany if I were hit by a car, but that is not anything to do with the EU - I would get the same in the US. Then I would be shipped back to the UK for treatment once I was stable. You would only get treated in Germany if you have health insurance.

 

Similarly I would not be eligible for unemployment benefit in Germany (is that what you mean by 'doll'?) and a German would not be eligible here. If I wanted to move to Germany when I was 65 I would not be eligible to collect a pension, except for the 2 years I worked there.

 

 

i believe your entitled to the same level of health care as a german would be, so if a german requires private medical insurance, i guess you would too; otherwize, im pretty sure you'd get long-term medical care.

 

as for unenployment benefit (doll must be a local slang term, sorry), as i understood it, as long as you are capable of supporting yourself when you go to a country, you are elegeble to draw from the state, so i'd have thought that being medically incapasitated in the country would make you elegeble for doll (could easily be wrong tho).

 

in both cases, i believe the policies have stuff built-in so that countries can deport people who come just to draw doll/get treated.

 

also, i think i was wrong when i said that the eu guarenteed your right to live and work within germany -- afaict, that's covered by the schengen packt, which the uk is not part of.