Support NeoGAF

[anonymous_abc]

EU poliGAF the place to discuss everything related to the EUssr. Elections, Policy discussions, horse trading, brexits,
consumer protection, red tape and much much more.

The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 28 member states that are primarily located in
Europe. The EU operates through a system of supranational independent institutions and intergovernmental negotiated
decisions by the member states. Institutions of the EU include the European Commission, the Council of the European
Union, the European Council, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the Court of
Auditors, and the European Parliament. The European Parliament is elected every five years by EU citizens.

The EU traces its origins from the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic
Community (EEC), formed by the Inner Six countries in 1951 and 1958, respectively. In the intervening years, the
community and its successors have grown in size by the accession of new member states and in power by the addition
of policy areas to its remit. The Maastricht Treaty established the European Union under its current name in 1993. The
latest major amendment to the constitutional basis of the EU, the Treaty of Lisbon, came into force in 2009.

The EU has developed a single market through a standardised system of laws that apply in all member states. Within
the Schengen Area, passport controls have been abolished. EU policies aim to ensure the free movement of people,
goods, services, and capital, enact legislation in justice and home affairs, and maintain common policies on trade,
agriculture, fisheries, and regional development.

The monetary union was established in 1999 and came into full force in 2002. It is currently composed of 18 member
states that use the euro as their legal tender. Through the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the EU has developed
a role in external relations and defence. The union maintains permanent diplomatic missions throughout the world and
represents itself at the United Nations, the WTO, the G8, and the G-20.

With a combined population of over 500 million inhabitants, or 7.3% of the world population, the EU in 2012 generated
a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of 16.584 trillion US dollars, constituting approximately 23% of global nominal
GDP and 20% when measured in terms of purchasing power parity, which is the largest economy by nominal GDP and
the second largest economy by GDP (PPP) in the world.

More at Wikipedia

The European Parliament (abbreviated as EU Parliament or the EP) is the directly elected parliamentary institution
of the European Union (EU). Together with the Council of the European Union (the Council) and the European
Commission, it exercises the legislative function of the EU. The Parliament is composed of 751 members, from all 28
member states of the EU.

Although the European Parliament has legislative power that the Council and Commission do not possess, it does not
formally possess legislative initiative, as most national parliaments of European Union member states do. The
Parliament is the "first institution" of the EU and shares equal legislative and budgetary powers with the Council
(except in a few areas where the special legislative procedures apply). It likewise has equal control over the EU budget.
Finally, the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, is accountable to Parliament. In particular, Parliament
elects the President of the Commission, and approves (or rejects) the appointment of the Commission as a whole. It can
subsequently force the Commission as a body to resign by adopting a motion of censure.

More at Wikipedia

The European Commission (EC) is the executive body of the European Union responsible for proposing legislation,
implementing decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and day-to-day running of the EU. Commissioners swear an oath
at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, pledging to respect the EU Treaties and to be completely independent
in carrying out their duties during their mandate.

The Commission operates as a cabinet government, with 28 members of the Commission (informally known as
"commissioners"). There is one member per member state, though members are bound to represent the interests of the
EU as a whole rather than their home state. One of the 28 is the Commission President proposed by the European
Council and elected by the European Parliament. The Council then appoints the other 27 members of the Commission
in agreement with the nominated President, and then the 28 members as a single body are subject to a vote of approval
by the European Parliament.

The term "Commission" is used either in the narrow sense of the 28-member College of Commissioners (or College) or
to also include the administrative body of about 23,000 European civil servants.

More at Wikipedia

The European Council is the institution of the European Union (EU) that comprises the heads of state or
government of the member states, along with the council's own president and the president of the Commission.

While the European Council has no formal legislative power, it is a strategic (and crisis-solving) body that provides the
union with general political directions and priorities, and acts as a collective presidency.

The meetings of the European Council, commonly referred to as EU summits, are chaired by its president and take
place at least twice every six months.

Decisions of the European Council are taken by consensus, except where the Treaties provide otherwise.

More at Wikipedia

The Council of the European Union (sometimes just called the Council and sometimes still referred to as the
Council of Ministers) is the third of the seven institutions of the European Union (EU) as listed in the Treaty on
European Union. It is part of the essentially bicameral EU legislature, representing the executives of EU member
states, the other legislative body being the European Parliament. The Council is composed of several configurations
of twenty-eight national ministers (one per state). The exact membership of the configuration depends upon the
topic; for example, when discussing agricultural policy the Council is formed by the twenty-eight national ministers
whose portfolio include this policy area (with the related European Commissioner contributing but not voting).

The Presidency of the Council rotates every six months among the governments of EU member states, with the
relevant ministers of the respective country holding the Presidency at any given time ensuring the smooth running
of the meetings and setting the daily agenda. The continuity between presidencies is provided by an arrangement
under which three successive presidencies, known as Presidency trios, share common political programmes. The
Foreign Affairs Council (national foreign ministers) is however chaired by the Union's High Representative. The
Council is administered by the Council's Secretary General.

Its decisions are made by qualified majority voting in most areas, unanimity in others. Usually where it operates
unanimously, it only needs to consult the Parliament. However, in most areas the ordinary legislative procedure
applies meaning both Council and Parliament share legislative and budgetary powers equally, meaning both have
to agree for a proposal to pass. In a few limited areas the Council may initiate new EU law itself.

More at Wikipedia

The ordinary legislative procedure, applies to nearly all EU policy areas. Under the procedure, the Commission
presents a proposal to Parliament and the Council. They then send amendments to the Council which can either
adopt the text with those amendments or send back a "common position". That proposal may either be approved
or further amendments may be tabled by the Parliament. If the Council does not approve those, then a "Conciliation
Committee" is formed. The Committee is composed of the Council members plus an equal number of MEPs who
seek to agree a common position. Once a position is agreed, it has to be approved by Parliament again by an
absolute majority. There are other special procedures used in sensitive areas which reduce the power of Parliament.

More at Wikipedia

Direct elections take place to the European Parliament every five years. The Council and European Council is
composed of nationally elected or appointed officials and thus are accountable according to national procedures.
The Commission also isn't direct elected although future appointments of the President must take into account of
results of Parliament's elections.




More at Wikipedia

More at Wikipedia

 

[Barmaley]

I wish there was a graph showing how much does a common market and a common currency benefits each country. Also have a forecast of how the economical situation would change for a net-payer country if it left the EU.

 

[anonymous_abc]

I wish there was a graph showing how much does a common market and a common currency benefits each country. Also have a forecast of how the economical situation would change for a net-payer country if it left the EU.

If it were as easy as that I'm sure such graphs would exsist.
However so many factors play into that I would say it is ny impossible. The uk government report on cost and benefit of eu membership proved that. You can pretty much cherry pick whatever conclusion you want from such reports.
And there are so many things that you just cannot legitimately put a monetary value to.

 

[Mr. RHC]

Nice thread, OP!
----

Don't be that guy. You really don't wanna be that guy(in the photo).

 

[anonymous_abc]

Assuming this is all true (And I expect it is), then maaaan:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...amerons-most-important-eu-speech-of-the-year/

Shit's getting real.

EU politics will be very interesting in the next few months indeed.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Flix, you missed out the part of the legislative flow chart where the leaders all go into a dark room and wank as quickly as they can onto Merkel's face. The last one to cum has to lick her face clean and then gets "taken out" of the legislative process. Then starts round two, and so on and so on, until there's only one leader left, and that person and Merkel then decide on the actual legislative agenda.

At least, I assume that's what Farage means by "Back Room Deals." That's what happened in "The back room" at my boarding school with Matron.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Flix, you missed out the part of the legislative flow chart where the leaders all go into a dark room and wank as quickly as they can onto Merkel's face. The last one to cum has to lick her face clean and then gets "taken out" of the legislative process. Then starts round two, and so on and so on, until there's only one leader left, and that person and Merkel then decide on the actual legislative agenda.

At least, I assume that's what Farage means by "Back Room Deals." That's what happened in "The back room" at my boarding school with Matron.

I thought I had already added enough humour to the OT.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Alright alright so slightly on topic, here's an interesting map showing the net levels of immigration from EU nations. Notice how the top two recipients of EU migration (I don't know if this is as a percentage of total population?) are Norway and Switzerland, neither of whom are in the EU but both of whom are in the free movement of people programme.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Alright alright so slightly on topic, here's an interesting map showing the net levels of immigration from EU nations. Notice how the top two recipients of EU migration (I don't know if this is as a percentage of total population?) are Norway and Switzerland, neither of whom are in the EU but both of whom are in the free movement of people programme.

Where is that from it is indeed interesting. Must be what Nigel thinks of when suggesting the Swiss or Norwegian models.
What he also always likes to ignore the fact that these countries have to and choose to comply with vast swathes of EU legislation, without having particular rights to offer input or decide on said legislation.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Where is that from it is indeed interesting. Must be what Nigel thinks of when suggesting the Swiss or Norwegian models.
What he also always likes to ignore the fact that these countries have to and choose to comply with vast swathes of EU legislation, without having particular rights to offer input or decide on said legislation.

http://www.bruegel.org/publications...-race-for-talent-europes-migration-challenge/

They might not have input, but presumably they have greater powers to ignore the bits they don't like? Otherwise they'd just be members of the EU without any democratic representation. And if there's anything the EU doesn't like, it's a lack of democratic representation.

 

[Walshicus]

http://www.bruegel.org/publications...-race-for-talent-europes-migration-challenge/

They might not have input, but presumably they have greater powers to ignore the bits they don't like? Otherwise they'd just be members of the EU without any democratic representation. And if there's anything the EU doesn't like, it's a lack of democratic representation.

They pretty much *are* member states without representation. That's the irony of Pint-in-Hand-Man's push to be more like them.



Good thread, I've wanted to see an EU politics thread for a while now.

 

[CyclopsRock]

They pretty much *are* member states without representation. That's the irony of Pint-in-Hand-Man's push to be more like them.



Good thread, I've wanted to see an EU politics thread for a while now.

But there must be something that they're getting that they'd cease to get off they were full members, otherwise they'd just become full members.

 

[Walshicus]

But there must be something that they're getting that they'd cease to get off they were full members, otherwise they'd just become full members.

Notional freedom to act? It's a bizarre situation - Norway has tried to join the EU in the past but on both referenda on the subject there was a very very narrow majority against. So now they pay into the EU budget, opt in to pretty much every EU project, are involved in the Schengen Free Trade area... but have no formal say on how any of it is run.

As of 2009, Norway has chosen to opt into EU projects and its total financial contribution linked to the EEA agreement consists of contributions related to the participation in these projects (Schengen Agreement, Europol, EU Drug Monitoring Centre, Frontex, the European Defence Agency and the Union's battlegroups) and part made available to development projects for reducing social and economic disparities in the EU (EEA and Norway Grants). EEA EFTA states fund their participation in programmes and agencies by an amount corresponding to the relative size of their gross domestic product (GDP) compared to the GDP of the whole EEA. The EEA EFTA participation is hence on an equal footing with EU member states. The total EEA EFTA commitment amounts to 2.4% of the overall EU programme budget. In 2008 Norway’s contribution was €188 million. Throughout the programme period 2007—2013, the Norwegian contribution will increase substantially in parallel with the development of the EU programme budget, from €130 million in 2007 to €290 million in 2013. For the EEA and Norway Grants from 2004 to 2009, Norway provided almost €1.3 billion.

Norway and the EU are like... an unmarried co-habiting couple where all the assets are in the one person's name. Norway's paying half the mortgage, but doesn't have a claim to it.


Norway's relationship with the EU isn't something to admire, like Pint-in-Hand-Man does. It's actually a little bit sad when you think about it. All the costs (and all the benefits, yes), but no say on how it's run.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Notional freedom to act? It's a bizarre situation - Norway has tried to join the EU in the past but on both referenda on the subject there was a very very narrow majority against. So now they pay into the EU budget, opt in to pretty much every EU project, are involved in the Schengen Free Trade area... but have no formal say on how any of it is run.



Norway and the EU are like... an unmarried co-habiting couple where all the assets are in the one person's name. Norway's paying half the mortgage, but doesn't have a claim to it.


Norway's relationship with the EU isn't something to admire, like Pint-in-Hand-Man does. It's actually a little bit sad when you think about it. All the costs (and all the benefits, yes), but no say on how it's run.

Well it's nice to know that the various governments of Norway hold the view of their electorate in such low esteem.

 

[Walshicus]

Well it's nice to know that the various governments of Norway hold the view of their electorate in such low esteem.

That's a question for Nor-GAF. Presumably they're happy with the arrangement or they'd vote in parties that oppose it.

 

[Coreda]

I've never noticed the lobster before.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Flix, you missed out the part of the legislative flow chart where the leaders all go into a dark room and wank as quickly as they can onto Merkel's face. The last one to cum has to lick her face clean and then gets "taken out" of the legislative process. Then starts round two, and so on and so on, until there's only one leader left, and that person and Merkel then decide on the actual legislative agenda.

At least, I assume that's what Farage means by "Back Room Deals." That's what happened in "The back room" at my boarding school with Matron.

I could have done without that mental image.

 

[anonymous_abc]

I've never noticed the lobster before.

I don't get it.

 

[Reuenthal]

In EU every country is equal but some countries are more equal than others.

 

[anonymous_abc]

In EU every country is equal but some countries are more equal than others.

yep, the small countries get more MEPs per person than the large countries. I'm sure you meant that.

 

[Guerilla]

The Parliament is the "first institution" of the EU and shares equal legislative and budgetary powers with the Council

Nice joke but is it necessary to pour salt on the wound?

 

[Reuenthal]

yep, the small countries get more MEPs per person than the large countries. I'm sure you meant that.

I am sure the 6 MEP of Cyprus is a great force in europe.

But I was refferring more to Eurogroup, ECB, Troika, and the consequences of various decisions of EU, such as the austerity policies, the euro currency, the bail in in Cyprus. These decisions have winners and losers and the countries with doublediggit unemployment levels that rising aren't the winners.

Additionally, per person decision making of representatives that happens only with the parliament limited authority would mean that more populous countries have far more of a say. Even that would be an improvement over people of europe having little to no say of course but smaller nations whose local policies are increasinly decided on a european level have very little say. And european parties have an inherently more pro european agenda, an agenda that is increasingly decided by the most powerful economically and populous country in Europe and to a lesser extend France.

In practice EU decides what it wants and the parliament (well some of them) just makes some noise about excessive austerity, or grossly unfair policies such as the bail in, a lot of it just for show without much changing.

 

[anonymous_abc]

I am sure the 6 MEP of Cyprus is a great force in europe.

But I was refferring to Eurogroup, ECB, Troika, and the consequences of various decisions of EU, such as the austerity policies, the euro currency, the bail in in Cyprus. These decisions have winners and losers and the countries with doublediggit unemployment levels that rising aren't the winners.

Even now the 'some are more equal than others' would need further narrowing down. That can be applied to almost anything and not only within the EU.

Either way can we agree that it is slightly short sighted to lay all the blame for the ails of southern Europe at the doorstep of Germany. And trust me I am no friend or supporter of recent austerity politics.

But how would you expect it to work? It's always been the case that large strong entities influence policy to a greater extent than small weak ones. After PIIGS sunk their economies I'm sure it would have been wise to give the PIIGS full reign over measures to deal with the situation am I right?
It's exactly the same within previously existing federal states like for example Germany. Weak, small states (Saarland, Bremen, etc) have less influence than strong large states.
And small states within Europe would have been dominated by the larger ones without the EU too. This way though they get significantly more say in the matter than previously.

 

[Guerilla]

Even now the 'some are more equal than others' would need further narrowing down. That can be applied to almost anything and not only within the EU.

Either way can we agree that it is slightly short sighted to lay all the blame for the ails of southern Europe at the doorstep of Germany. And trust me I am no friend or supporter of recent austerity politics.

But how would you expect it to work? It's always been the case that large strong entities influence policy to a greater extent than small weak ones. After PIIGS sunk their economies I'm sure it would have been wise to give the PIIGS full reign over measures to deal with the situation am I right?
It's exactly the same within previously existing federal states like for example Germany. Weak, small states (Saarland, Bremen, etc) have less influence than strong large states.
And small states within Europe would have been dominated by the larger ones without the EU too. This way though they get significantly more say in the matter than previously.

PIIGS didn't sunk their economy, Euro sunk PIIGS economies because it's a shitty currency that can't be devalued which only benefits the powerful within the union. Not to mention EU's shitty deregulation rules that didn't allow countries to control their banking sector's investments. Spain btw even had a surplus before the financial meltdown.

 

[Walshicus]

PIIGS didn't sunk their economy, Euro sunk PIIGS economies because it's a shitty currency that can't be devalued which only benefits the powerful within the union. Not to mention EU's shitty deregulation rules that didn't allow countries to control their banking sector's investments. Spain btw even had a surplus before the financial meltdown.

A good chunk of the *world* economy crashed in the late noughties; not just the Eurozone's. Even today, the English economy (outside the Eurozone) is still at 2004 levels of GDP per capita. An entire decade has been wiped away.

Some of the extra pain in the South can be blamed on Eurozone rules, and a lot can be blamed on Southern states themselves. Devaluation isn't a panacea - it's effectively the same thing as wage reduction and results in higher cost of living.

But yes, some of the gains the North made from the currency need to be transferred to the South.

 

[Guerilla]

A good chunk of the *world* economy crashed in the late noughties; not just the Eurozone's. Even today, the English economy (outside the Eurozone) is still at 2004 levels of GDP per capita. An entire decade has been wiped away.

Some of the extra pain in the South can be blamed on Eurozone rules, and a lot can be blamed on Southern states themselves. Devaluation isn't a panacea - it's effectively the same thing as wage reduction and results in higher cost of living.

But yes, some of the gains the North made from the currency need to be transferred to the South.

Devaluation isn't directly linked to wage reduction and the actual loses for the middle class always pale in comparison to the disaster austerity caused. Euro could only work if EU's economy was unified, any other solution makes it as crappy as precious metal currency. And let's not use GDP to downplay the disaster here, things are far worse for the majority of Europe compared to 2004.

 

[Coreda]

I don't get it.

Super quick sketch

 

[Reuenthal]

Even now the 'some are more equal than others' would need further narrowing down. That can be applied to almost anything and not only within the EU.

Either way can we agree that it is slightly short sighted to lay all the blame for the ails of southern Europe at the doorstep of Germany. And trust me I am no friend or supporter of recent austerity politics.

But how would you expect it to work? It's always been the case that large strong entities influence policy to a greater extent than small weak ones. After PIIGS sunk their economies I'm sure it would have been wise to give the PIIGS full reign over measures to deal with the situation am I right?
It's exactly the same within previously existing federal states like for example Germany. Weak, small states (Saarland, Bremen, etc) have less influence than strong large states.
And small states within Europe would have been dominated by the larger ones without the EU too. This way though they get significantly more say in the matter than previously.

You say PIIGS sunk their own economies, doesn't that statement look a little problematic to you?

It applies partly to Greece and it is more complicated with other countries (even wrong with Greece alone) but then you would need to turn back time to 2010 and imply that the policies followed on a european level dictated on Greeks were neutral and Greeks did all the rest of the damage. I sued to have a more positive opinion as lesser evil but the point with austerity that works is that you do only some of it, with an expiration date and when you don't do it you don't use rhetoric such as punishment. Additionally Greece always had problems controlling its expenses, and some sane austerity of cutting bad spending that is bad return of investment (instead of continuallying cutting good and bad spending and increasing taxes way way too much and too often) but due to currency devaluations the damage it sustained from flawed pollicy was fewer than with the euro when currency devaluation was not an option, a bank run was far less manageable. A currency for which its designers must hold responsibility for.

With Cyprus we have a classic case of banking crisis. Again there are internal flaws for which I can write about though I am not sure why all Cypriots deserve to suffer with horrible pollicy in responce to bad pollicy in regards to regulation of the bank but Europe must share its responsibility for the suffering. In this case we had Trichet and all relevant EU officials promising bonds of European nations being extra safe, and after Cypriot bankers bought Greece bonds and they were haircut even though Greece took some help from EU in loans so it would cope, Cyprus took no help. Cypriot banks sharing both language and culture and many bonds had expansed in Greece and they took a big hit from the Greek crisis. Now instead of simply providing a loan such as in other countries with banking problems such as Ireland we had instead a bail in.

It happened for two reasons. A) Cyprus as German media and officials said was too small and uninvolved to be a risk to the collapse of the eurozone. No consideration over the consequences to the economy. B) Punishment, message to other countries.


I don't blame Germany alone, I blame EU federalists, EU nationalists as well in addition to racist German nationalists. (Even those who don't think themselves as either racist or nationalist, but as with all there is a spectrum. Someone might not be particularly racist and nationalist on all things but still be too much. This is especially a problem with powerful countries that have very strong influence on weaker ones. People naturally want to defend their countrry and see it from that perspective and negative press on other countries and people affect them, but the consequences are all the same. The suffering that is happening right now in southern europe more than justifies the use of rhetoric) As I myself was wrong on some issues regarding the EU I can feel sympathy to those who are wrong but are empathetic about finding the best solution for the smaller countries in a lesser evil sort of way.

It's exactly the same within previously existing federal states like for example Germany. Weak, small states (Saarland, Bremen, etc) have less influence than strong large states.
And small states within Europe would have been dominated by the larger ones without the EU too. This way though they get significantly more say in the matter than previously.

Look, you are trying to imagine the sky as green when it is obviously blue. An incredible amount of pollicy is decided based on the unelected troika and in part with German financial minister when it comes to the policies in countries like Cyprus and Greece. A lot of which are unpopular. I am not sure what Debtocracy has to do with democracy and the biggest difference between those small states and Germany as a whole is that they are one nation and compatriots. The EU's role in the Troika should be awknowledged. As racist and bigoted as people can be localy (not talking about one country specifically but in general) with some of their compatriots and as little as they care for serving their interests German politicians have a lot more incentive to help other Germans than they have to help Cypriots. And so do German people. And as a result bail in. Now, if the pollicy followed was economically sound and without plenty of punishment rhetoric and the priority was to help have the best economy that would be one thing. But it isn't and it won't.

If we are trying to create a federation then defending policies that are disastrous to some ocuntries and dictated by other more powerful as not a problem and thinking the biggest issue of inequality is smaller countries having too much of a say then to my eyes, that is closer to nationalism than caring for common european interests.

Such sentiments are a big issue, the racial strife in the USA for example causes massive problems but as bad as they have it they probably like each other more than you like the PIIGS that sunk their own economy as you say and also have too much of a say in europe.

Maybe we should focus on pollicies that are more mutually beneficial for the countries suffering more and repairing the relationship if you really want a european nation and federation? Getting people on board through liking you than fear of the alternative is a better choice is it not?

Also if the euro just can't work and is more bad than good, then is the ideal of a common europe better than europeans actually doing better? To my eyes we have a classic case like many before of idealism of a multi-nationa state that works based on that theory and ideal over what is practically better for the people. Maybe we should try to keep europeans friendly with each other in an EU that has less of dictate on the pollicies of national goverments because it can't follow policies that are going to be mutually beneficial but it and NATO and geopolitics are such that they won't war with each other.

At the very least if we don't do that then trying to help the countries with super large unemployment, and help is not just stopping collapse might be another idea. If you want a european federation you should see things more from the perspective of

PIIGS sunk their economies

or you can continue to think that is all their blame that their people don't deserve full democratic rights and that the pollicy followed by the troika is good enough despite any negatives because they-we don't deserve otherwise.

Otherwise combining eurofederalism with German or northern nationalist point of view of is going to have predictably tragic consequences. It already did as the current consequences are already tragic.

 

[CyclopsRock]

After PIIGS sunk their economies I'm sure it would have been wise to give the PIIGS full reign over measures to deal with the situation am I right?

I think this is the sort of patronising attitude that really enamours people to the EU.

In reality, the PIIGS had "their cake" with the Euro in the first place - suddenly they could borrow at a much cheaper rate which lead to a housing construction boom in all of them - but by being part of the Euro, their ability to respond to it was taken away from them. Their economies are broadly uncompetitive, and the traditional way for a country in recession to regain competitiveness is to devalue their currency which makes it more attractive for foreign people and businesses to purchase their goods and less attractive for their domestic people to do likewise, encouraging the purchase of domestically produced goods. It means a temporary hit on quality of life in order to regain competitiveness and improve employment.

Joining the Eurozone simultaneously allowed the PIIGS to accrue a lot more debt than ever before whilst removing their ability to deal with its consequences. They're now in a system wherein the changes they need cannot be done because of the negative impact it'd have on the other parts. In this instance, the larger countries calling the shots absolutely comes at the expense of the PIIGS.

 

[Walshicus]

Devaluation isn't directly linked to wage reduction

Yes it is. Devaluation is a de-facto reduction in purchasing power. Sure the numbers on your pay packet might not go down, but the amount you can buy does.

 

[Guerilla]

Yes it is. Devaluation is a de-facto reduction in purchasing power. Sure the numbers on your pay packet might not go down, but the amount you can buy does.

50% devaluation doesn't not equal 50% reduction of your purchasing power, the number isn't even close to be comparable since there are many other factors that play a part. Furthermore if we're talking about Southern Europe a devaluation would cause a huge boost to these countries tourism. It has been proven again and again that devaluation is infinitely better than austerity and usually the only ones who don't benefit by it are the rich.

 

[anonymous_abc]

You say PIIGS sunk their own economies, doesn't that statement look a little problematic to you?

It applies partly to Greece and it is more complicated with other countries (even wrong with Greece alone) but then you would need to turn back time to 2010 and imply that the policies followed on a european level dictated on Greeks were neutral and Greeks did all the rest of the damage. I sued to have a more positive opinion as lesser evil but the point with austerity that works is that you do only some of it, with an expiration date and when you don't do it you don't use rhetoric such as punishment. Additionally Greece always had problems controlling its expenses, and some sane austerity of cutting bad spending that is bad return of investment (instead of continuallying cutting good and bad spending and increasing taxes way way too much and too often) but due to currency devaluations the damage it sustained from flawed pollicy was fewer than with the euro when currency devaluation was not an option, a bank run was far less manageable. A currency for which its designers must hold responsibility for.

With Cyprus we have a classic case of banking crisis. Again there are internal flaws for which I can write about though I am not sure why all Cypriots deserve to suffer with horrible pollicy in responce to bad pollicy in regards to regulation of the bank but Europe must share its responsibility for the suffering. In this case we had Trichet and all relevant EU officials promising bonds of European nations being extra safe, and after Cypriot bankers bought Greece bonds and they were haircut even though Greece took some help from EU in loans so it would cope, Cyprus took no help. Cypriot banks sharing both language and culture and many bonds had expansed in Greece and they took a big hit from the Greek crisis. Now instead of simply providing a loan such as in other countries with banking problems such as Ireland we had instead a bail in.

It happened for two reasons. A) Cyprus as German media and officials said was too small and uninvolved to be a risk to the collapse of the eurozone. No consideration over the consequences to the economy. B) Punishment, message to other countries.

I am well aware that I was exaggerating when I said the PIIGS sunk their economies, but as Cyclops points out they do share their part of the blame. As does the entire construct of the EURO which when it was created deiced to forget that a monetary union requires a joint fiscal and economic policies too. Nobody these days is arguing against that, it was a mistake and we have to work towards a framework to make sure these problems don't occur again. -> closer union.
The Am I right was meant as a question, as to what your alternative suggestions would be, the IMF and Europe are footing a large part of the bill, so is it not justified that they then get some influence? I honestly don't know the answer, I doubt anyone knows what would be fair to everyone.
I am anything but a friend of bailing out banks for their greedy practices and paying for that by cutting money for the people in need in our society. It cannot be that profits continue to be privatised and losses are socialised.

I don't blame Germany alone, I blame EU federalists, EU nationalists as well in addition to racist German nationalists. (Even those who don't think themselves as either racist or nationalist, but as with all there is a spectrum. Someone might not be particularly racist and nationalist on all things but still be too much. This is especially a problem with powerful countries that have very strong influence on weaker ones. People naturally want to defend their countrry and see it from that perspective and negative press on other countries and people affect them, but the consequences are all the same. The suffering that is happening right now in southern europe more than justifies the use of rhetoric) As I myself was wrong on some issues regarding the EU I can feel sympathy to those who are wrong but are empathetic about finding the best solution for the smaller countries in a lesser evil sort of way.

So you both blame the federalists and the nationalists? How does that work then? And I just cannot let it stand that German policy is dictated by a bunch of nationalists. We had those 70 years ago, what we have now is not that. And by golly, I am no fan of Angela, I've voted against her whenever I could and would like to see her leave office, but I find it sickening to see her portrayed as a nazi by the italian and greek press. Talk about below the belt!

Look, you are trying to imagine the sky as green when it is obviously blue. An incredible amount of pollicy is decided based on the unelected troika and in part with German financial minister when it comes to the policies in countries like Cyprus and Greece. A lot of which are unpopular. I am not sure what Debtocracy has to do with democracy and the biggest difference between those small states and Germany as a whole is that they are one nation and compatriots. The EU's role in the Troika should be awknowledged. As racist and bigoted as people can be localy (not talking about one country specifically but in general) with some of their compatriots and as little as they care for serving their interests German politicians have a lot more incentive to help other Germans than they have to help Cypriots. And so do German people. And as a result bail in. Now, if the pollicy followed was economically sound and without plenty of punishment rhetoric and the priority was to help have the best economy that would be one thing. But it isn't and it won't.

I stated previously that I do not intact support the austerity measures, I really don't see why I have to defend myself from positions that I do not hold.

If we are trying to create a federation then defending policies that are disastrous to some ocuntries and dictated by other more powerful as not a problem and thinking the biggest issue of inequality is smaller countries having too much of a say then to my eyes, that is closer to nationalism than caring for common european interests.

You obviously misunderstood me, I was not talking against that and am intact on record stating that I am greatly in favour of this policy!
And calling me nationalists is just ridiculous. I am European!

Such sentiments are a big issue, the racial strife in the USA for example causes massive problems but as bad as they have it they probably like each other more than you like the PIIGS that sunk their own economy as you say and also have too much of a say in europe.

Maybe we should focus on pollicies that are more mutually beneficial for the countries suffering more and repairing the relationship if you really want a european nation and federation? Getting people on board through liking you than fear of the alternative is a better choice is it not?

Absolutely!

Also if the euro just can't work and is more bad than good, then is the ideal of a common europe better than europeans actually doing better? To my eyes we have a classic case like many before of idealism of a multi-nationa state that works based on that theory and ideal over what is practically better for the people. Maybe we should try to keep europeans friendly with each other in an EU that has less of dictate on the pollicies of national goverments because it can't follow policies that are going to be mutually beneficial but it and NATO and geopolitics are such that they won't war with each other.

At the very least if we don't do that then trying to help the countries with super large unemployment, and help is not just stopping collapse might be another idea. If you want a european federation you should see things more from the perspective of or you can continue to think that is all their blame that their people don't deserve full democratic rights and that the pollicy followed by the troika is good enough despite any negatives because they-we don't deserve otherwise.

Otherwise combining eurofederalism with German or northern nationalist point of view of is going to have predictably tragic consequences. It already did as the current consequences are already tragic.

You seem to have seriously misjudged my attitudes towards Europe and the struggling countries. That will teach me to write semi-sarcastic posts here... I am all in favour of helping my southern neighbours and friends! I would never agree with a statement like 'would you rather see Germans than Greeks helped out'. I am very leftwing and social in that respect and anything but a nationalist, I don't care where someone was born or not. Please go look at my post history in other politics and EU threads and you will see that it is so!

In order to combat the Euro ails I believe closer union is the answer, we need common taxes, common pension age, common social services (on the highest possible standard not the lowest common denominator), common economic policy designed to transfer money from the rich to the poor not the other way around and much much more. The euro crisis showed that the serious birth defects of that construct are a grave threat to Europe as a whole.

 

[Mr. RHC]

Big day tomorrow for the EP, first plenary and election of the President!

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/...for-the-post-of-European-Parliament-President

There are 4 candidates, but EPP and S&D probably already have decided who is getting the job, so.

 

[anonymous_abc]

The EU meddling in our freedom again.

Charges for surfing the internet on smartphones while travelling in the EU have been cut by half as new rules come into force.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28102927

 

[travisbickle]

The EU meddling in our freedom again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28102927

do people stll use the phrase "surfing the internet"? what is this, the '90s?

 

[Walshicus]

do people stll use the phrase "surfing the internet"?

... Yes?

 

[CyclopsRock]

The EU meddling in our freedom again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28102927

I was in "the EU" last week and my roaming fee was 38.2p a megabyte, which is higher than both the 2013 "cap" and the 2014 one. I guess it must be an exchange rate thing?

Also, I like how the consumer group says people need to still be careful when travelling outside the EU, as if 16p a megabyte is cheap. Watching an hour of netflix @ 16p a megabyte on my phone would cost about £165.

 

[anonymous_abc]

I was in "the EU" last week and my roaming fee was 38.2p a megabyte, which is higher than both the 2013 "cap" and the 2014 one. I guess it must be an exchange rate thing?

Also, I like how the consumer group says people need to still be careful when travelling outside the EU, as if 16p a megabyte is cheap. Watching an hour of netflix @ 16p a megabyte on my phone would cost about £165.

I look forward to the complete scrap of roaming charges.
And I don't know why you had to pay 38.2p.


The old is the new EP president.
Martin Schulz MEP

After two and a half years the presidency will change to the EPP. As was the case in the last EP.

 

[Walshicus]

I was in "the EU" last week and my roaming fee was 38.2p a megabyte, which is higher than both the 2013 "cap" and the 2014 one. I guess it must be an exchange rate thing?

Complain!

 

[Reuenthal]

I am well aware that I was exaggerating when I said the PIIGS sunk their economies, but as Cyclops points out they do share their part of the blame. As does the entire construct of the EURO which when it was created deiced to forget that a monetary union requires a joint fiscal and economic policies too. Nobody these days is arguing against that, it was a mistake and we have to work towards a framework to make sure these problems don't occur again. -> closer union.
The Am I right was meant as a question, as to what your alternative suggestions would be, the IMF and Europe are footing a large part of the bill, so is it not justified that they then get some influence? I honestly don't know the answer, I doubt anyone knows what would be fair to everyone.
I am anything but a friend of bailing out banks for their greedy practices and paying for that by cutting money for the people in need in our society. It cannot be that profits continue to be privatised and losses are socialised.

Well let us make a few things clear here. Exaggeration or no, it does cause damage to either focus on them put all the blame on the countries suffering the most from the crisis and from the treatment and justifying it. You can't really have it both ways, if you are against austerity then you need to revise your views as more anti-EU even if you think that EU while being part of the problem is also part of the solution. So taking all of your posts in this thread you are kind of all over the place. You need to criticize more of what the EU is doing if you want an EU that provides solidarity to it's members even if you do want EU to be the solution and the future.

Now, obviously people are influenced by what the media report, nobody is born with an ideology on his sleeve, so I think you would benefit by looking more on my perspective, especially as someone who used to view the EU a lot more positively.

As for more fair ways to go. Well, I looked back on the Depositors pay price in Cyprus bailout thread out of curiosity on what you did say back then. And I was positively surprised.

thats ridiculous, the 7e9€ is pocket change, if Germany where to do anything to keep the euro afloat they wouldn't make such a fuss about a measly 7e9€.
They are playing test laboratory with Cyprus, and its sickening :-/

Your words not mine.

And Cyprus was a test laboratory and it was sickening because as the German officials including the German financial minister said they didn't see it as systemic risk. So all are equal but the less connected and smaller countries get punished much worse because they can afford to allow it, even if doing otherwise would have allowed the country to rise from the crisis faster.

The problem with the decisionmaking is that it is bad economic pollicy that does not fall under any coherent economic philosophy of how is the best way to better run a country. And there is the rhetoric of punishment combined with it.

A fairer way to go is more limited in scope austerity and more negotiation leeway to the countries that get help so there is some room for codecision. Continually increasing taxes and cuts in spending with no end in sight, especially as the recession causes projections for income-expenses to fall out is simply catastrophic. Of course all these pale in comparison to the treatment of Cyprus which was treated worse than any other country. For example there is the famous bail in, the treatment after the hair cut of greek bonds when Greece got a loan as compensation but Cyprus which had a bigger cost in comparison to GDP got nothing but there was another issue (well and more but let's focus on these three). And then there was the way the subsidiaries of Cypriot banks in Greece being given all of their assets to a Greek bank while the Cypriot banks (= cypriot taxpayer) got all the debt of those banks. This was a negotiation between Cypriot Troika and Greek one.

So these are all very valid problems, in which the current EU with Angela Merkel and her financial minister were behaving as if they were the decisionmakers when it happened. Because they were.

And yes there are more I could write about bad pollicy that is followed.


Now these are just some of the issues. On a more general level whether it is a smart idea for so many different countries to keep the euro currency is very important. As for the decision making with the parliament having limited power and it too having problems, and the consequences of the eurogroup, ECB, troika decisionmaking and the democratic gap is another very significant issue.


So in conclusion finding a perfect and completly fair solution is hard thing, maybe extremely hard, but as things currently operate in Europe are so grossly unfair that it is very easy for both you and me to imagine better and much fairer ways to go.

So you both blame the federalists and the nationalists? How does that work then? And I just cannot let it stand that German policy is dictated by a bunch of nationalists. We had those 70 years ago, what we have now is not that. And by golly, I am no fan of Angela, I've voted against her whenever I could and would like to see her leave office, but I find it sickening to see her portrayed as a nazi by the italian and greek press. Talk about below the belt!

EU nationalists tend to be EU federalists. As for German nationalists, not all German nationalists are EU nationalists and EU federalists but a very real version of German nationalism that sees Germany dominating EU and creating an EU in it's own image with Germany the central decision maker and in charge and at such wants more powers for the EU does exist. The whole question of Germanic Europe. These are not really issues that I personally bring up but the actual reality that many people are aware of and have analyzed even before I was are of them.

People like their country to be top dog so that ideal can be attractive to Germans who might also not appear particularly nasty people.

As for Angela Merkel, we could waste a long time debating this and I don't consider it the most valueable way to go, but yes she is a nationalist. And a nasty one. She put Germany in a position to decide an unprecedent number of policies for many different nations, takes such decisions using rhetoric of punishment regularly, those tend to be bad policies that produce suffering but the least amount of cost and the most amount of influence for Germany. While she advocates for stronger EU powers. And all while racist and nationalistic rhetoric about PIIGS especially Greece and the superior Germany become widespread.

Nazis are not the only type of nationalists, they are just the most insane and evil ones. So yes those are gone in Germany, and are mostly hated worldwide but that doesn't mean German nationalism is dead. Though I wish it was. Self congratulation is dangerous and can be an aliby for harmful and abusive behavior such as what Germany is doing. This is all based on the consequences of real human suffering, it was a choice to use punishment as part of decision making, so being criticized for it like I do, is the least one can do.

You seem to have seriously misjudged my attitudes towards Europe and the struggling countries. That will teach me to write semi-sarcastic posts here... I am all in favour of helping my southern neighbours and friends! I would never agree with a statement like 'would you rather see Germans than Greeks helped out'. I am very leftwing and social in that respect and anything but a nationalist, I don't care where someone was born or not. Please go look at my post history in other politics and EU threads and you will see that it is so!

In order to combat the Euro ails I believe closer union is the answer, we need common taxes, common pension age, common social services (on the highest possible standard not the lowest common denominator), common economic policy designed to transfer money from the rich to the poor not the other way around and much much more. The euro crisis showed that the serious birth defects of that construct are a grave threat to Europe as a whole.

The thing is, different countries have different problems and are in different situations. Tax rates have different results and so does spending. If during the recession you go into increasing taxes so you can have common tax rates between an industrial giant and say an island whose most economy is a service sector partly based on banking and logistical services that is probably going to have negative results. And it would be inconsistent with a genuine attempt to help.

So does monetary pollicy. And powerful countries will try to choose the pollicies that serve best their interests. It would be nice to happen differently but it is a little naive to expect otherwise. And under this kind of thinking one size fits all solutions such as the euro was catastrophic.

What is important is more quality control but the objective should be superior pollicy. And sure under that kind of thinking certain common pollicies is an issue. But when designing common pollicy and one size fits all solutions it is rather likely very significant problems could happen, problems that should be avoided.

Changing the EU into something that is a) more representative to the interests of the people of europe small countries and large b) provides more help to its weaker members including weaker members that possess less systemic risk c) cares for providing more quality pollicy of members in crisis rather than the logistical approach of constantly increasing austerity combined with rhetoric of punishment by its more dominating stronger partner.

In reality, countries don't really try to reach the best possible solution, EU is a battleground of nation states for how to best serve their interests, and pretty much always has been with the result being less than ideal pollicy. So idolizing the current EU is very dangerous indeed as it gives ability for destructive pollicy that inflames hatred of European people. And I am not sure how to create a multinational state that can work and follows common pollicy that is mutually beneficial and not dominated by the strongest nation, with others feeling resentful. Reform of fixing things in following more quality pollicy and more solidarity to the countries that have more problems is needed. But I doubt I will see most of the above I want to happen, happen. Disgusting decisions will keep on happening. Bassically you do look kind of like an idealist but EU is not designed or run by idealists who seek the best solution for all members possible including the smaller ones. And better pollicy (like say the euro) is often sacrifised for the sake of politics.

So not only is the current state of EU bad, I am not sure why one should be optimistic for the right reform happening, other than perharps if even that as a result to people making demands, making noise and criticism towards the EU happening.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Of course people should make demands towards the EU, the wide spread apathy is a cancer to the entire system.
I don't believe the EU as it is no is the be all end all, it need reform lots of drastic reform!
Overall though yes I am incredibly pro EU, because I firmly believe all the challenges that we as a people will face cannot be solved by small petty nation states! And I am incredibly pro EU here on GAF because I seem to be in the minority and want my side of the story heard!
From everything I've read over the last couple of years both in the Britisch and German press there seems to be a consensus that Germany never wanted it's current prime position within Europe, in the past Germany was always happy to stand behind or at the very least shoulder to shoulder with France et al. Exactly in order to prevent all this fourth reich rhetoric and because Germany as a whole is very aware of its past. And now it has one of the strongest economies in Europe, yes unquestionably the Euro helped. But also due to very painful reforms and policies in the last 20 years since Germany reunification.

And I do like to cite Germany as an example for a federal state because all things considered I happen to think it works very well and could server as a model to the EU. There are weak and strong states, there is a Länderfinanzausgleich (financial equalisation scheme between the Federal Government and the Länder) which aims to keep the living standards across all of Germany equal by taking money from the rich states and giving it to the poor states (very simplistically said!) Lots of policies are decided in Berlin, but all manner of more localised policies are decided on a state level and then there is a level between that and the local communities which deals with broader local levels. Overall and simplified I would say there are 4 levels of government which deal with different matters depending on the area of impact. Personally I would like see the state level removed and replace the national level with the EU level. In the very long term!
The aim of the EU has to be to achieve equal living standards from Aberdeen to Zypern, just like it is German policy to equalise it between east and west Germany.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Overall though yes I am incredibly pro EU, because I firmly believe all the challenges that we as a people will face cannot be solved by small petty nation states!

Out of interest, can you name a few? The challenges, I mean - which ones do you think are better solved at the EU level rather than national level?

 

[Walshicus]

Out of interest, can you name a few? The challenges, I mean - which ones do you think are better solved at the EU level rather than national level?

Climate change, environmental protection and land management, worker rights and social justice, competition regulation, cultural preservation and ideological promotion, defence, trade...

 

[CyclopsRock]

Climate change, environmental protection and land management, worker rights and social justice, competition regulation, cultural preservation and ideological promotion, defence, trade...

How many of those are because you prefer the outcomes from the EUP vs Westminster? Or, to put it another way, if all the Members of the EUP were in Westminster and vice versa, would you hold a different position?

 

[Purkake4]

Umm, no Croatia?

 

[anonymous_abc]

How many of those are because you prefer the outcomes from the EUP vs Westminster? Or, to put it another way, if all the Members of the EUP were in Westminster and vice versa, would you hold a different position?

The single greatest threat to our planet:
Climate and environment challenges can only be solved transnationally. What point is ocean protection by the UK if France, Benelux and Scandinavia pollute the ocean around you?
What point is a fracking ban in Germany if Poland fracks right on its border.

Consumer protection if Luxemburg decides to mandate all electronics use the same connector or bans the use of certain chemicals, do you really think any electronics company will care? If the EU with a market of 500e6 decides that, the companies will pay attention.

Umm, no Croatia?

very good point.
missed that.

 

[Walshicus]

How many of those are because you prefer the outcomes from the EUP vs Westminster? Or, to put it another way, if all the Members of the EUP were in Westminster and vice versa, would you hold a different position?

Of course outcomes matter, but as FliX points out most of those policy areas are either significantly enhanced by being decided at a supranational level or else simply won't work at the national.

The fact that the EUP makes consistently better decisions than Westminster is just icing.

 

[dalin80]

Climate change, environmental protection and land management, worker rights and social justice, competition regulation, cultural preservation and ideological promotion, defence, trade...

Have to disagree with defence. Every single multi nation EU defence project as been a complete raging cluster fuck.

 

[Walshicus]

Have to disagree with defence. Every single multi nation EU defence project as been a complete raging cluster fuck.

NATO?

And even if you're just talking about European Union defence structures rather than the principle of supranational defence... there just hasn't been much history here. I mean there have been a few uses of EUFOR and it did relatively good work in Bosnia and Central Africa. But the whole system is still quite young.

 

[Purkake4]

Have to disagree with defence. Every single multi nation EU defence project as been a complete raging cluster fuck.

What about the Chunnel?