I wonder what people who want to leave the EU, and I suppose no other "overstate"-structure, feel about the future of mankind. Are we really gonna remain little petty states limited by arbitrary borders and ethnocentrism while we colonize other planets?
Or is that when you'll give up your national identity and embrace the world government?
I would hate to give up my national identity, its what makes mankind so great that we have a mixture of different cultures and ways of thinking. I would hate for a human future where we are just one big world govt and people in asia are just clones of people in Europe.
I will be moving to Korea on the 16th May(so glad I dont get to live in the country whilst whoever is in govt) and the main reason is because I want to experience living in a culture and a way that is different to what I am use to.
I also dont like to idea of a world govt because it will undoubtedly follow all global organisations which our dominated with the western thinking of "our way or the highway". this is despite the fact that different cultures of the world have developed at different paces.
I remember my International Law teacher telling me the story about how her village in India grew X(forgotten what it was) and would have high import prices on product X. America and Europe said they couldnt do this and then when she went back 10 years latter the whole production of X was gone because others imported it much more cheaply. This is despite the fact that the most Western nations all had high import taxes during their years of development to build up their economy.
Sir Fragula's comment wasn't even related to what you and I were talking about (despite him having a point).
You actually believe that if the member states jointly bring 1% of their GDP together as contributions in the EU, it is going to come back to them as exactly 1% of their GDP in contribution cash?
I hate to break it to you, but from the 1% of cash they spend on the EU, the member states only get a very small fraction of that back as cash in the form of development funds and such. The contributions from the member states are done to make the EU as an organization function. Sooooo, because they don't get their monetary contribution handed to the EU, that exact money, back from the EU, it's even worse than what you think!!! WHoaa. Then why would the EU exist? Why would countries want to throw money away? And why limit it to the EU? Why would you need a British government, when your 100 pound tax only, at best, comes back to you as a 100 pound bill in refund. There's no reason for governments, for organization, for rules. Scale effects are a sham, investments don't exist, economics are fairytales, ...
Why do you only apply this logic, either a plea for anarchy, or just complete stupidity, only to the EU, and not every other form of organization, whether it is in government form, or in private form.
No point in debating with people, who let me put it kindly, are hopelessly ignorant. You have demonstrated time and again that you have no idea what fact is as illustrated by your third sentence. So yes, when referencing some of your posts it will almost certainly be mockery that is employed because that is the level of response they deserve in my opinion. It is amusing that you think it is "a debate" we are having.
It hasn't taken anything, it's been GIVEN through the consent of every democratically elected government of every memberstate. European governments have chosen to give up power over a number of policy areas because there is a clear and apparant benefit in doing so. Again, you can't have a working economic community of the sort we enjoy without some kind of political authority; you can't justify that political authority without democratic control [through Parliament] or judicial oversight [through the courts].
When I meant taken I meant it in terms of taken away responsibility from a directly elected govt that the people have entrusted to make decisions for them, not to fob it off to another form of govt that most people dont understand how it works.
You can have political authority through the council of ministers who can decide on key issues. As for the courts I wouldnt mind a european economic tribunal made up of the nations, but that is my limit.
The best example I can give on why i dislike the EU so much as it is now is that during the economic crisis, Sarkozy was going to bailout the french car industry but said the money must be spent on plants in France. Then along comes Europe and says you cant give french taxpayers money back into french car industry to ensure french jobs are saved. you have to give it to the plants in Poland and the rest of eastern europe.
Sarkozy tried to do as much as he could to help france recovered but was blocked by the EU, what a fucking joke of a system.
When I meant taken I meant it in terms of taken away responsibility from a directly elected govt that the people have entrusted to make decisions for them, not to fob it off to another form of govt that most people dont understand how it works.
You can have political authority through the council of ministers who can decide on key issues. As for the courts I wouldnt mind a european economic tribunal made up of the nations, but that is my limit.
The best example I can give on why i dislike the EU so much as it is now is that during the economic crisis, Sarkozy was going to bailout the french car industry but said the money must be spent on plants in France. Then along comes Europe and says you cant give french taxpayers money back into french car industry to ensure french jobs are saved. you have to give it to the plants in Poland and the rest of eastern europe.
Sarkozy tried to do as much as he could to help france recovered but was blocked by the EU, what a fucking joke of a system.
That last sentence... what? The EU forced France to spend their own tax payer money on car plants in Poland?
Aside from that. The reason why subsidies, for any reason, is prohibited, is because it creates a race to the bottom between the member states. The moment France starts subsidizing its car industry, every other European country with car plants in them start doing the same. Which makes unprofitable plants stay open, causes a giant feast for car manufactures (yay free tax payer money!!!), immense stocks and overcapacity, and last but not least an ever growing deficit in every country involved. Higher deficits mean higher taxes for the citizens or less social security and support. Everybody loses.
It's the same reason why certain minimal social rights are on a European level. If not, it would create a race to the bottom in a similar fashion as I mentioned above. Countries would make it a contest in trying to have the shittiest worker rights possible, so that f.e. car manufacturers would settle there. Everybody loses.
Part of the mandates of the EU is creating a level playing field so that no country can create (hidden) obstacles in free trade and competitions. Because otherwise, once again,... everybody loses.
I'm not saying that there are no aspects of the whole car manufacturing industry being bailed out that raise any questions. But from what I've heard, the EC didn't have to power (or balls) to go against countries like Germany and closed one eye when they offered a company like GM money (basically subsidies). But that's a testament how the EU should be a stronger institution, not a reason why it should be abolished or partly dissolved.
If you would actually give legitimate reasons why you don't like the EU, people wouldn't laugh at you. But with every post you back up your stance with a bunch of lies, misinformation and ignorance. And every time people correct or try to teach you about the facts (zomg they're pro-European), you just plainly ignore them and start selective quoting someone else to start a new argument until you're put in a corner in that one too. The pattern is very noticeable.
There are most definitely reasons to criticize the EU, but a lack of knowledge about the EU is not one of them. That's why people either laugh at you, or say people shouldn't bother quoting you.
That last sentence... what? The EU forced France to spend their own tax payer money on car plants in Poland?
Aside from that. The reason why subsidies, for any reason, is prohibited, is because it creates a race to the bottom between the member states. The moment France starts subsidizing its car industry, every other European country with car plants in them start doing the same. Which makes unprofitable plants stay open, causes a giant feast for car manufactures (yay free tax payer money!!!), immense stocks and overcapacity, and last but not least an ever growing deficit in every country involved. Higher deficits mean higher taxes for the citizens or less social security and support. Everybody loses.
It's the same reason why certain minimal social rights are on a European level. If not, it would create a race to the bottom in a similar fashion as I mentioned above. Countries would make it a contest in trying to have the shittiest worker rights possible, so that f.e. car manufacturers would settle there. Everybody loses.
Part of the mandates of the EU is creating a level playing field so that no country can create (hidden) obstacles in free trade and competitions. Because otherwise, once again,... everybody loses.
I'm not saying that there are no aspects of the whole car manufacturing industry being bailed out that raise any questions. But from what I've heard, the EC didn't have to power (or balls) to go against countries like Germany and closed one eye when they offered a company like GM money (basically subsidies). But that's a testament how the EU should be a stronger institution, not a reason why it should be abolished or partly dissolved.
your race to the bottom idea is implying that it would be used whenever a car company met trouble. Sarkozy is elected by the french people and wanted to help protect french jobs in one of the worst economic climates. He was not worried about protecting jobs of other member nations because they have their own govts to help subsidise. Sarkozy was only proposing this because of the situation not as a general rule. I also would like to think that any govt would actually look into any individual case before just giving them out, like ensuring that they can become profitable with the aid.
As for the mandate another example using French and cars. France proposed a tax on all cars engines that blah blah blah. Most of the french car companies already complied with this and then the germens got annoyed because it effected them the most and it was squashed by europe. While I agree that it was a stealth move to help french car companies against foreign rivals, it is up to those companies to decide if they want to do business in france. Meet the same standards as those expected within France and they would have been ok.
the more i think of this the more shitty it sounds on the french
Also I am not against europe coming together and agreeing on thinks and making a basic standard throughout europe, what i am against is the idea that we need an additional level of govt that can decide on things.
you've already shown that you don't know anything about politics. Your suggestion that businesses should just not comply with EU laws because obviously they won't enforce them, and then the very next day RyanAir (a company that prides itself on how badly it treats its customers) tried to do it and the EU threatened to take them to court and they backed down immediately.
you've already shown that you don't know anything about politics. Your suggestion that businesses should just not comply with EU laws because obviously they won't enforce them, and then the very next day RyanAir (a company that prides itself on how badly it treats its customers) tried to do it and the EU threatened to take them to court and they backed down immediately.
Depends what you mean by "current form." If its an argument on economic grounds then yes, absolutely. If its an argument against against the tighter integration of European consumer/labour/product/manufacturing/etc laws precisely to strengthen the common market and make it workable, then again, yes. If its an argument that it is somehow wrong to prevent protectionist economics in individual parts of the Eurozone (as you argued previously), then again, I'd have to say yes.
I'm not going to claim the EU is perfect but one of the major reasons why its structure can't be altered to be more efficient and democratic is because of Euro skeptics blocking treaties and constitutional changes whenever they can.
Kowak said:
Also I am not against europe coming together and agreeing on thinks and making a basic standard throughout europe, what i am against is the idea that we need an additional level of govt that can decide on things.
This point is pretty contradictory. How else do you propose we come to common consensus on trade/labour/pollution/consumer/human rights laws and make trade agreements as a common market without the EU? Fact is, to manage all of that you need some form of democratically elected government, you need some form of bureaucracy and you need some sort of agency to enforce it all. The EU exists to accomplish the goal you set out and it costs a nominal amount of GDP for each member state considering the massive benefits it brings to their economies. Sure, it could probably be more efficient in many respects, but starting the whole thing again from scratch isn't going to get you that level of efficiency. Surely the better way is to improve the established system we already have?
Trust me, we do, we have to put up with people screaming it in our faces every time something about the EU comes up in the news. UKIP, BNP, Daily Mail etc. all scream it at us because like I said, anti-EU people seem to believe that the world is as it was 60 years ago.
We're a tiny, backward little bunch of islanders who aren't quite sure the war's over, and Clegg showed that in the Guardian article he wrote that the Mail attacked him for. Well, OK anti-EU people, here's the News. Your opinion is no longer credible in today's world. No one listens to the UK any more, we're a small island just off Europe with a small population whos economy just got raped by recession. We have a small (often under-equipped) army, and a small domestic market. Very little industry and our financial services sector (the thing we were good at) had to be bailed out by the government.
For all you want to bang on about the 'special relationship' the United States doesn't listen to us unless it wants to, while we seem to blindly follow it everywhere. Even Obama recognises that the EU together is immensely powerful, and he doesn't validate the EU by visiting its institutions (at least not on camera) because keeping us apart is in the US's best interest, as demonstrated by a US voter further back in this thread. The relationship hasn't been 'special' we've been 'special' for keeping it the way it is, look at the uneven extradition laws we have with the USA for one thing.
Further EU intergration is inevitable, YOU DO elect the EU parliament, just because you didn't vote or didn't take it seriously doesn't give you the right to complain about that. You do elect the EU council, because the PM and cabinet ministers are our reps on that body. Same with the commission, the government elects people to go to that, though I believe the commission should be scrapped and replaced by the council to simplify matters. People in the EU ARE elected by you! Anyone saying they're not is giving you scaremongering twaddle. Millions of Jobs rely on the EU, rely on the freedom of travel and trade we have because of the EU. Many more jobs will be created because the EU will grow, immigration is a cop out, millions of Brits live in the EU, immigrants here either work here because they're skilled, or work here because no one else will do the job. The problem the EU has had is that its trying to help economies like Poland etc. get up to the EU standard, many immigrants have gone home as that standard improves, and as work dries up here.
Problems? Yes there are problems, you can't solve them by sulking, taking your ball and going home. The immigration from France of Asylum seekers and Africans is a problem, if you see programs like 'this world' though and understand what they do to get here, they'd be SWIMMING here if the channel tunnel didn't exist, and besides, they don't have EU passports, border control on BOTH sides should be catching and deporting them. The institutions of the EU are complicated, but when they tried to simplify them, the anti-EU groups took it to mean we'd become a superstate (we will...eventually) and blocked the constitution and then the Lisbon Treaty, which cleared out the crap that had built up from the other treaties being stacked higgled piggledy on top of each other.
If we don't come together and speak together, then we'll be ignored, as demonstrated at Copenhagen., when the USA and China stitched something together between them. Nearly all the complaints people come up with about the EU are either 1. Wrong (the amount of 'waste' comes under this, because most of isn't true. 2. A relic of the past, that believe that the UK can still do everything ourselves. This is the UKIP/BNP argument on the EU. (Though I would say that UKIP is not a racist bigoted party like the BNP). 3. SOCIALISM! HATE THE JERRYS AND FROGS! Chocs away chaps! Tally-bally-ho! This is the Daily Mail argument.
/rant This rant was brought to you by late nights, coffee, frustration and the study of the world's international relations since the end of the Cold War. Seriously, if you're anti-EU, give me credible, reasoned and actually serious argument as to why we shouldn't be in it and I'll consider it and argue peacefully, all that the anti-EU parties in all countries seem to come up with is scremongering attitudes from the war period or that we spend too much on the EU, even though the EU does a great deal for us.
. The institutions of the EU are complicated, but when they tried to simplify them, the anti-EU groups took it to mean we'd become a superstate (we will...eventually) and blocked the constitution and then the Lisbon Treaty, which cleared out the crap that had built up from the other treaties being stacked higgled piggledy on top of each other.
.
This in particular is something that really frustrates me. Any attempt to make the EU work in a way more sympathetic to Euro skeptics is met with huge swathes of paranoia and outrage and instead all they manage to achieve is to keep the "bad" and inefficient parts of the EU.
We're not leaving the EU. Not now not ever (well not in most of our lifetimes anyway). Not even the Tories are even contemplating that, so the sooner people just accept that the better as it allows us to move forward and allow the EU to work for us the way it should. It isn't about surrendering sovereignty, its about making the EU a more useful and efficient institution so that it benefits all residents of member states.
Our economy would completely collapse if we left the EU, alone we're such a tiny and insignificant voice on the world stage.
Depends what you mean by "current form." If its an argument on economic grounds then yes, absolutely. If its an argument against against the tighter integration of European consumer/labour/product/manufacturing/etc laws precisely to strengthen the common market and make it workable, then again, yes. If its an argument that it is somehow wrong to prevent protectionist economics in individual parts of the Eurozone (as you argued previously), then again, I'd have to say yes.
I'm not going to claim the EU is perfect but one of the major reasons why its structure can't be altered to be more efficient and democratic is because of Euro skeptics blocking treaties and constitutional changes whenever they can.
This point is pretty contradictory. How else do you propose we come to common consensus on trade/labour/pollution/consumer/human rights laws and make trade agreements as a common market without the EU? Fact is, to manage all of that you need some form of democratically elected government, you need some form of bureaucracy and you need some sort of agency to enforce it all. The EU exists to accomplish the goal you set out and it costs a nominal amount of GDP for each member state considering the massive benefits it brings to their economies. Sure, it could probably be more efficient in many respects, but starting the whole thing again from scratch isn't going to get you that level of efficiency. Surely the better way is to improve the established system we already have?
I believe that all that is needed is the European Council and the Council of Ministers. The actual parliament is unnecessary. This is the way how most major decisions have ever been achieved and the way Europe use to operate, The need for a parliament us just a waste of resources. The Maastricht Treaty is a mistake that moved the ECC away from just economic purposes. I am not against treaties that aim to improve standards across Europe. I dont like that Europe can prevent individual nations from most effectively dealing with a nations domestic problem and the increased reliance on the rest of europe instead.
I find it very patronising that you would say I am ignorant and paranoid unless I believe what you do. I have studied Europe for both Politics and Law at a-levels and for my degree. I know Europe isnt a big baddy but I dont think it is an effective organisation.
Credible response: I think we should have a general referenda on whether voters want to stay in europe and also the intergration into what policy areas such as transportation, foreign policy, immigration, etc.
If the people want to stay in Europe - then either I'm of the old middle class or I need to reconsider my position in this life.
Also credible question: How do I redress my grievensess(sp??) with the European Instituitions. Like I know over here we have Parliamentary Obudsmen but is there something similiar for the EU.
Also credible question: How do I redress my grievensess(sp??) with the European Instituitions. Like I know over here we have Parliamentary Obudsmen but is there something similiar for the EU.
This in particular is something that really frustrates me. Any attempt to make the EU work in a way more sympathetic to Euro skeptics is met with huge swathes of paranoia and outrage and instead all they manage to achieve is to keep the "bad" and inefficient parts of the EU.
We're not leaving the EU. Not now not ever (well not in most of our lifetimes anyway). Not even the Tories are even contemplating that, so the sooner people just accept that the better as it allows us to move forward and allow the EU to work for us the way it should. It isn't about surrendering sovereignty, its about making the EU a more useful and efficient institution so that it benefits all residents of member states.
Er, yes it is about surrendering sovereignty. It is well-known that many officials in Brussels envision federal super-state. Already the amount of domestic laws that come from Brussels is shockingly high considering its democratic deficit. Maybe in countries with fascist pasts, there is an argument for more restrictive democracy, but I don't believe that England should pay for the sins of Europe.
I don't think most people would mind if the EU still just consisted of Western European countries who are politically, culturally and economically more in line with Britain, but the addition of Eastern European countries with their high unemployment and budget deficits, out of control political corruption and organised crime demonstrates the negatives of rapid European expansionism at the cost of principles.
This is not paranoia, it is a fact that none of the main three parties like to face up to. The only referendum this country had has was the 1975 referendum on the continued membership of the European Economic Community, not some European super-state. I think the unpopularity of the European constitution and its rejection by voters of France and the Netherlands by referenda shows that the current institution has a serious legitimacy deficit right across the EU.
Our economy would completely collapse if we left the EU, alone we're such a tiny and insignificant voice on the world stage.
That would be a problem why? Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore all seem to manage quite well as island countries. Heck, England managed for centuries to conduct its own affairs without European intervention. Yes there are trade and economic benefits to be had by being part of the EU, but to suggest that we need Europe is really an insult to our country. That somehow we're ineffectual and completely incapable of managing our own laws and sovereignty.
That said, I would like us to remain in the EU, but as Cameron said in the last leadership debate - in the EU, but not run by it.
That would be a problem why? Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore all seem to manage quite well as island countries. Heck, England managed for centuries to conduct its own affairs without European intervention. Yes there are trade and economic benefits to be had by being part of the EU, but to suggest that we need Europe is really an insult to our country. That somehow we're ineffectual and completely incapable of managing our own laws and sovereignty.
That said, I would like us to remain in the EU, but as Cameron said in the last leadership debate - in the EU, but not run by it.
your race to the bottom idea is implying that it would be used whenever a car company met trouble. Sarkozy is elected by the french people and wanted to help protect french jobs in one of the worst economic climates. He was not worried about protecting jobs of other member nations because they have their own govts to help subsidise. Sarkozy was only proposing this because of the situation not as a general rule. I also would like to think that any govt would actually look into any individual case before just giving them out, like ensuring that they can become profitable with the aid.
As for the mandate another example using French and cars. France proposed a tax on all cars engines that blah blah blah. Most of the french car companies already complied with this and then the germens got annoyed because it effected them the most and it was squashed by europe. While I agree that it was a stealth move to help french car companies against foreign rivals, it is up to those companies to decide if they want to do business in france. Meet the same standards as those expected within France and they would have been ok.
the more i think of this the more shitty it sounds on the french
Also I am not against europe coming together and agreeing on thinks and making a basic standard throughout europe, what i am against is the idea that we need an additional level of govt that can decide on things.
If you want to make this car industry decision from France legal, France will have to leave the EU. Because it affects the very core of the European Union, which is still the common market. Once you give 1 country the possibility to either subsidize certain industries, or tax other ones extra hard, in order to "protect the own economy", it ends the whole principle of that common market. You're talking about "making this an exception to the rule because it was critical for France". But you can't make exceptions to this ground principle of the Union, especially not only at the point when it starts to become critical. Once France can protect it's car industry, every other country will too. This is not some sort of assumption. It would happen. Not to mention, once countries with a car industry start protecting those industry, other countries, who don't have an interest in the car industry, will start wanting to protect the industries they do have an interest in. The European Union as a whole just will cease to exist. Simple as that. The race to the bottom I explained, would happen. Because once one member state starts a protective measures, it is cheating on the others. It's a form of free riding. Not one other country would stand for it.
This is also the reason why Europe has to come up with rules, that are so easily ridiculed. It's to create a level playing field. A famous example is how the EU explained how cucumbers should to look like. The UK tabloids had a hoot portraying it as a prime example of how the EU is just fucking with us, total nitpickers. However, even when it comes to something as simple as cucumbers, the EU has to make sure that (hidden) protective measures are not put in place by countries. Lets say that spain produces cucumbers that always weigh more than 500 grams, while France's cucumber industry almost exclusively mini ones, only weighing at most 400 gram. A hidden protection could be put into place by France by saying that cucumbers have to weigh less than 500 grams or they can't be sold in France. EU steps in and says: cucumbers weigh from 100 to 1000 grams, and all those that fall between those limits, have to be allowed for sale in every member state. Don't underestimate the inventiveness of countries to try and cheat the system. Belgian lawnmowers produce 70 decibels on average, Dutch ones produces 60 decibels. Holland could put a law in place limiting the amount of decibels a lawnmower is allowed to make to 69 decibels, making it effectively impossible for Belgium to export their lawnmowers. EU steps in, and in this case, the chances are high that if the technology to reduce the sound of lawnmowers is common place and cheap, they'd agree with Holland and say that the maximum limit must be 69 decibels. That way the Belgian industry is forced to comply to better, more demanding rules. Consumers get better from it, industries are modernized, and a level playing field for all lawnmower producers so that they can only compete with each other by reducing prices or going even further down the limit in sound production.
It's this basic principle that is the foundation of the EU. It's this reason why you can't allow France to suddenly start protective measures for its car industry. No matter how good it might sound for the French, and would indeed be awesome if this was somehow made an *exception*, something that only the French could do, it might (not even sure) be beneficial for them. However, this is all hypothesis, because it wouldn't be an *exception* only for this industry, only for France. Every country would do it in every sector, making it a lose-lose situation for all, going back to the pre-WWII situation in Europe which was pretty much dramatic economic wise, with obvious repercussions for social and foreign relation situations as well. I hope you understand what I'm saying, that this level playing field without exceptions benefits everyone, and that free riding might be even better for individual countries, but undermines the whole system nullifying the benefits for everyone. Because if you don't understand or believe this, it would drag us into a debate on basic economics, which (and this sounds very arrogant :-/ ) I would win. Every evidence says that the common market has been immensely advantageous for everyone involved. I find it hard to understand, how someone who lives inside the market, and experiences it every day, can't see this. Perhaps some broader and historical perspective is necessary I guess. I think it is caused by an understandable reflex to fault the EU for every thing that goes wrong, because the EU is something abstract, something that affects our lives without us knowing exactly how or why. Not to mention, because most people don't know how the EU works, it's the perfect scape goat for national politicians when things go wrong. You should wonder why Sarkozy proposed these measures. He knows it's not allowed, and he knows it wouldn't work. But it sounds good in the ears of the French, and because it won't be allowed by the EU, Sarkozy can profile himself as the good guy being held back by the backward EU.
Lastly, you don't like an "additional form of government that can decide on things". After what I've said, I hope you see how this government is necessary. The member states are notorious opportunists, and if they couldn't be reminded of the rules of the common market, and be forced to comply to them, you can pack the Union up in a minute and all go home. Why does it need an administration? Because it has to monitor the market, study and decide on conflicts like the lawnmower example I made, and create new rules to continue in strengthening the market, preventing loopholes and free riding, and a system to enforce the law on countries. So the European Commission and Council of Ministers are a necessity for the common market to work. But who gives them the right to decide how much decibels a lawnmower can make? Well, despite the members of the EC and CoM being democratically elected by the European people, it might be a good thing that there is a directly elected organ that controls everything. An extra checks-and-balances link (similar to that of most nation states) to make sure that the EU functions well, and in the interest of the people, consumers and producers alike. And that is the Parliament. But what if countries don't apply to the rules set out by the common market, or some rules are simply dubious? Well, you need a judicial system to decide on these matters.
So you see, even if you completely limit the European Union to an economic area, all the institutions that are in place right now, are absolutely necessary for it to work. The only one that is just an addition, is the European Council of State Leaders. This body doesn't have any legislative, executive or judicial powers. It's put in place to appease the state leaders who have a hard time losing some control over everything. The European Council has given itself the job to provide some road-map for the far future, some goals for the EU in the general sense, and to talk about matters that are very pressing and current.
Edit: oh, and I'd like to add that the Agricultural policy is one of the few thing people can have legitimate complaints about. Because that is an exception to the common market principles. Because it is good for only a few member states. And because the system of either subsidies or quotes don't work at all. This policy is a relic of the post-WWII mentality. It was put in place to prevent there from ever being another famine or general food shortage ever again. Everyone supported it back then. Agriculture was very important, and people (including state leaders) didn't have a big problem with a protectionist and sub-optimal system if it meant the food supply was guaranteed.
I thought the parts about the proposed change where unelected leaders would face an election were quite funny.
This morning, Cameron has suddenly launched a new idea: a proposal that, if the premiership changes between elections, an election has to be held within six months. That is very clearly targeted at Gordon Brown. It also flags up a Tory fear that Labour could ditch Brown for a new leader in order to facilitate a post-election coalition with the Lib Dems: "You could have someone as prime minister who wasn't even in the televised debates."
His latest proposal would be a major rule change to Britain's democracy, which is, we remind him, parliamentary, not presidential. The policy features nowhere in the Tory manifesto. Isn't it a sign of panic that he is suddenly proposing a major constitutional change?
He bridles a little: "I didn't think there was a law against announcing policies in an election. Normally, you guys are saying, 'Come on, where's the news? Where's the beef?'" He claims it is "a very logical extension" of what his line has been all along: there should have been an election when Brown took over from Tony Blair: "It's just the formalisation of something that I've been saying for some time."
There were changes of prime minister during both world wars: from Asquith to Lloyd George, and from Chamberlain to Churchill. Under his proposal, there would have been snap elections in the middle of these conflicts. The forehead furrows, then he rallies: "This is a proposal for the future, not the past." He adds that "in the modern world people feel rather cheated" if they haven't voted for the prime minister.
I believe that all that is needed is the European Council and the Council of Ministers. The actual parliament is unnecessary. This is the way how most major decisions have ever been achieved and the way Europe use to operate, The need for a parliament us just a waste of resources. The Maastricht Treaty is a mistake that moved the ECC away from just economic purposes. I am not against treaties that aim to improve standards across Europe. I dont like that Europe can prevent individual nations from most effectively dealing with a nations domestic problem and the increased reliance on the rest of europe instead.
Funny how you would say the Parliament is unnecessary, because it is the most democratically elected branch of government. And "lack of democratic legitimacy" is one of the main complaints of the eurosceptics. Europe is desperately trying to adapt its branches of power to mimic those of member states more, to appease the people who constantly criticize the system. The Parliament is moving more and more towards an important legislative institution, and is in some cases already more powerful than the parliaments in individual member states. Anyone who wants democratic transparency and accountability, should applaud this.
I don't want nag, but this is also a ironic constant from the critics of the EU. "Well, I'm not against the EU, but it should go back to what it was, because now it has become undemocratic, sluggish, ...", while in fact the EU is moving more and more away from any of those criticisms. That is off course, if you let them, which ironically the eurosceptics don't allow. So the eurosceptics are acting against their own interests by constantly voting against Treaty changes. The Treaty changes are meant to democratize the Union even further, and the reform the decision making process to be less sluggish, along with a whole bunch of assurances that non of the the hoopla a lot of tabloids and politicians claim, is true or will come true. The EU has been "in crisis" for almost 6 years, because the treaties that are meant to streamline everything are blocked by the people who point the finger that the EU doesn't work and is in a permanent crisis.
This is what gives many informed people the impression that anti-EU people are against the EU "just because". Fear, irrational feeling that things used to be better or that individual countries would fare better without it, ... I'm perfectly willing to debate about the wrongs, faults and disadvantages of the EU and I will be the first to nod agreeing when someone does (f.e. like I said, the Agricultural policy is subpar, and there's much to be said the common foreign policy as well), but so far I have seen shockingly little legitimate complaints about the EU. It's always the same uninformed opinions and prejudices, which have you left either ignoring them or trying to correct them. It gets tiring after a while, and bring you closer to rather childish responses like "read a goddamn book". (Mind you, I'm not talking about you here )
Hypothetically, why wouldn't the UK be able to expand its own exporting industry and make trading agreements with other economic units on its own volition? All I'm saying is that the idea that we need the EU and would be utterly lost without it is flawed, the EU as an trading bloc just makes our lives easier. Nor do I see why the economic benefits of the EU need to be interdependent with social policy. Nevertheless, this is something that should be addressed from within than without.
This is what gives many informed people the impression that anti-EU people are against the EU "just because". Fear, irrational feeling that things used to be better or that individual countries would fare better without it, ... I'm perfectly willing to debate about the wrongs, faults and disadvantages of the EU and I will be the first to nod agreeing when someone does (f.e. like I said, the Agricultural policy is subpar, and there's much to be said the common foreign policy as well), but so far I have seen shockingly little legitimate complaints about the EU. It's always the same uninformed opinions and prejudices, which have you left either ignoring them or trying to correct them. It gets tiring after a while, and bring you closer to rather childish responses like "read a goddamn book". (Mind you, I'm not talking about you here )
It cannot be denied though, that the addition of Eastern European countries to the EU has had a detrimental effect on the domestic labour market, or that there isn't a lack of democratic legitimacy with the social policy agenda of the EU. Nobody has voted for Brussels to overrule domestic legislation on issues such as immigration or indeed the rushed expansionism of the EU at the expense of allowing countries that are somewhat incompatible with the ethos of Western Europe to join and receive the full benefits of an EU member state.
Edit: Out of curiosity, does any of the Europhiles on here support Turkey's accession to the European Union?
In the first fifteen minutes he debunks myths about his immigration policy and Trident, plus strongly suggests that if the polls remain as they are and Labour are the biggest party, he will not support Gordon.
It's a smashing interview and anyone who cares about the "wobbly" LibDem issues of Trident and immigration should watch it.
Er, yes it is about surrendering sovereignty. It is well-known that many officials in Brussels envision federal super-state. Already the amount of domestic laws that come from Brussels is shockingly high considering its democratic deficit. Maybe in countries with fascist pasts, there is an argument for more restrictive democracy, but I don't believe that England should pay for the sins of Europe.
I don't think most people would mind if the EU still just consisted of Western European countries who are politically, culturally and economically more in line with Britain, but the addition of Eastern European countries with their high unemployment and budget deficits, out of control political corruption and organised crime demonstrates the negatives of rapid European expansionism at the cost of principles.
This is not paranoia, it is a fact that none of the main three parties like to face up to. The only referendum this country had has was the 1975 referendum on the continued membership of the European Economic Community, not some European super-state. I think the unpopularity of the European constitution and its rejection by voters of France and the Netherlands by referenda shows that the current institution has a serious legitimacy deficit right across the EU.
Two points, firstly, as demonstrated above, the European Union DOES have democratic accountability, this is why people appeal to the EU court of Human Rights etc all the time. The Parliament is elected by the people, the Commission and Ministers are essentially Bureaucrats elected by the people who were elected by the people, the national governments. The Leaders Council is made up of the political heads of state. Could it be MORE democratic? Absolutely I'm sure, next time they try to please stop consistently voting ideas down because of the Daily Mail. The Lisbon Treaty is a example of this. People seem to forget that all the people working in the EU come from the actual EU countries. If you want ultimate accountability for governing institutions you should start here, campaign to elect the House of Lords and the Whitehall bureaucracy! I also already made a point above that immigrants from the East are going home as living standards improve in their own countries. The EU also aids the policing of criminal gangs across borders, sharing information to allow them to be monitored and crushed for more efficiently than non-talking neighbour states. Again, just because the British press give it a bad name and choose to cover nothing about the EU parliament, doesn't mean it's not a essentially good and working institution.
blazinglord said:
Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore all seem to manage quite well as island countries. Heck, England managed for centuries to conduct its own affairs without European intervention. Yes there are trade and economic benefits to be had by being part of the EU, but to suggest that we need Europe is really an insult to our country. That somehow we're ineffectual and completely incapable of managing our own laws and sovereignty.
OK. Australia and New Zealand are the only developed major states in their part of the world. Their closest neighbours are the ASEAN (SE Asia) countries, who are still developing economies wheras Australia is a developed one. It is a continent unto itself, is much larger that Western Europe, but supports only slightly more than half the population of the UK. Australia also has a load of its own resources and smaller island countries with them next door that it can easily bully.
Japan managed because it is a protectionist, developmental state, most of its markets were closed to foreign investment for a long time, (this also applies to S.Korea and China) and its people worked hard at manufacturing things on low wages for export. However since the burst of the bubble in 1990, Japan has stagnated badly, has spiralling government debt and a gigantic aging society problem (due to lack of immigration ironically) which means there are too few workers paying in to support OAPs. Japan works because of constantly spiralling debt being bought by its own savers (The Economist pointed out how this will be a MAJOR problem when half of them are dead by 2050 in a recent issue) and reliance on exports (which it will lose to China). Japan is also the main state pushing for an Asian EU equivalent, in order to control China in the future, lest every other state be swamped by Chinese resources. Japan and S.Korea are also subject to massive security treaties with the USA. Japan doens't even have an official armed forces of its own, just the JSDF. It also lacks a welfare state or anything like the Universal Healthcare coverage we have, though better than the USAs. Japan was reliant mostly on trade with the USA, soon it'll be reliant on trade with China. The threat of war in East Asia is a constant problem still, and to be honest, Japan was the first state to develop into a modern Western Style state in the whole region.
tl;dr - Aus + Japan, very different situations, Japan is completely reliant on the USA. Soon this will change to China. The comparison therfore with the UK works at first glance, but is in fact unreasonable due to differences in regional development as a whole. Oh and Japan and Australia are pushing for an Asian Community in the style and steps of the EU anyway.
Heck, England managed for centuries to conduct its own affairs without European intervention. Yes there are trade and economic benefits to be had by being part of the EU, but to suggest that we need Europe is really an insult to our country.
What a ridiculous statement to make. The world is very different now compared to 500yrs ago.
All this country has to export is Financial Services. There is not much else coming out of here that is actually worth anything.
Australia is an economy built on the export of natural resources. We don't have any.
New Zealand is a very poor example since there is very real talk of them joining up with Australia because a little island off the side can't compete.
Singapore's geography makes it perfect to be a trade hub with South East asia but it's in a very real dogfight with others in the region and is threatened by Hong Kong
Japan....Japan is utterly fucked, I don't know why you thought this was a good example.
Make no mistake we need the EU. Trying to claim otherwise is to live in denial and yes I would take Turkey into the union if they meet the criteria.
What a ridiculous statement to make. The world is very different now compared to 500yrs ago.
All this country has to export is Financial Services. There is not much else coming out of here that is actually worth anything.
Australia is an economy built on the export of natural resources. We don't have any.
New Zealand is a very poor example since there is very real talk of them joining up with Australia because a little island off the side can't compete.
Singapore's geography makes it perfect to be a trade hub with South East asia but it's in a very real dogfight with others in the region and is threatened by Hong Kong
Japan....Japan is utterly fucked, I don't know why you thought this was a good example.
Make no mistake we need the EU. Trying to claim otherwise is to live in denial and yes I would take Turkey into the union if they meet the criteria.
Right I'm not going into this good/bad EU arguments - but one could make the case we export other services like Education to the world, and of course you have the Games industry which is worth to the UK economy £1000million.
Right I'm not going into this good/bad EU arguments - but one could make the case we export other services like Education to the world, and of course you have the Games industry which is worth to the UK economy £1000million.
Edit: OOOOOOOH! You meant like development of industry and suchlike? Well sure that earns money, 'cept it earns money for the companies providing it and not really for us. They pay the taxes in the country they go to, not here, thus the population there learns, the country grows and the company benfits, we get, mostly nowt, well except maybe foreign students coming here to learn, but again that's technically immigration and apparently that's a big no no these days. Then the educated people go home and set up companies to compete, if they're good enough, they're bought out or become successful on their own and export elsewhere, or even back to us, which costs us money! It's a wonderful capitalist world we live in!
Right I'm not going into this good/bad EU arguments - but one could make the case we export other services like Education to the world, and of course you have the Games industry which is worth to the UK economy £1000million.
Can you stop having a hardon for the games industry! It's like you just learned about tax breaks in school and now you think it's the only way for businesses to grow.
The games industry is the new telephone services industry, it's going to be gone in 5-10 years, shipped off to China, India, South America, where the workforce will be cheaper and workers will be technically competent due to our export of education.
It cannot be denied though, that the addition of Eastern European countries to the EU has had a detrimental effect on the domestic labour market, or that there isn't a lack of democratic legitimacy with the social policy agenda of the EU. Nobody has voted for Brussels to overrule domestic legislation on issues such as immigration or indeed the rushed expansionism of the EU at the expense of allowing countries that are somewhat incompatible with the ethos of Western Europe to join and receive the full benefits of an EU member state.
Edit: Out of curiosity, does any of the Europhiles on here support Turkey's accession to the European Union?
It can certainly be argued that the expansion went to fast. Especially Romania and Bulgaria. Those countries were far from ready to enter the Union, and the Union has allowed them in knowing they didn't comply to all the rules that were set out. On the one hand it is part of pragmatic policy: trying to bind them into the European influence sphere instead of alienating them by giving them the idea that they're just put on hold for eternity. But on the other hand the fact remains that the expansion has come very quick, perhaps too quick, and that the EU did not have the financial resources to back it up.
I still believe the expansion has been in our best economic interests. The simple principle "you're better off if your neighbors are too" still applies. And to tell you something that might interest you. When the 2004 expansion was prepared, every Western country wanted to make sure that their own economies were protected against the cheaper products from the East, causing an amount of special (temporary measures) in free trade. 4 years after the expansion studies showed that the Western market wasn't flooded with Eastern products, but exactly the other way around. The West saw their market shares grow dramatically, it turned out that the Western industries were more competitive than those of the East, and that the growth of the East was unexpectedly tempered by the joining to the Union. So at first, despite obvious problems, it was very clearly the West that benefited the most from the expansion.
The problems that arise with the expansion of the Union, is that the institutions are not adjusted to function with the added members. The voting rules have to be changed to prevent deadlock and democratic deficit. Which was one of the main reasons for the recent attempts at Treaty Changes. Changes the eurosceptics have shot down. Against their own interests, because 90% of the criticisms they mention to refuse and progress, would be solved by allowed the progress.
______
On the subject of social policy. Social policy for a large part remains in the hands of the member states. And I like it that way too. I like for the EU to set minimal social standards and the protection of people, but countries should be allowed to do with the extra money bags they have to either hand it out in an even higher pension, or a daycare refund (just to say something). However, the reason why social policy is also a part of the EU competences, is because economic policy and social policy are intrinsically connected to one another. Countries could use social policies as a form of hidden protectionist measures. Or as a tool to attract foreign industries. I refer you to my previous posts, because I'm repeating myself here by mentioning races to the bottom, level playing fields, free riding behavior and cheating on the competition. It's the same reason why environmental laws exist. Not only to protect nature, but also to make sure the common market can function. That nobody blows up the system.
______
On the subject of Turkey. I'm divided on this. On the one hand the EU has treated Turkey in a rather unfair way, letting other countries, who do even worse in the progress reports, in the Union before them. Turkey was one of the very first countries to ask for membership, and the EU has never been clear on what Turkey can expect. Morocco has also asked to join the Union many decades ago, and than the EU swiftly said: hell no. But they didn't with Turkey. Instead they remain ambiguous towards it, and set out a bunch of rules to enter, only to change the rules (make the stricter) every time Turkey was on the verge of meeting every rule. It really has been an unfair treatment of the country, and for that alone I'm pissed the EU still hasn't given Turkey a clear timetable. It's also (again pragmatic) a matter of either trying to make them a part of the "European influence area" and make them look/act/be as much as ourselves as possible, rather than just repel them and driving them into a totally different direction (my fear: fundamentalist Islamic state given the region Turkey lies in). The promise of a possible membership alone has caused immense strides in political, social, economic, religious aspects of the country, not to mention rights and freedoms.
Fact of the matter is that Turkey remains a giant country, extremely poor by European standards, with lots of people, and many argue incompatible with the EU culture. The EU has poorly digested the previous expansion, so in my opinion it is too early to let them join, how sad I might find it for all the Turkish people, parties and groups that have worked for decades to make it possible.
I'd also like to mention something funny and peculiar. Countries like the UK are very eurosceptic, which would make them very scared of an expansion towards Turkey. Yet, in reality a lot of the eurosceptic politicians are pro Turkey membership. Why? Because the UK still sees itself as more of an Atlantic country, than a European continental country. And it sees Turkey as a possible ally in geopolitics, together with the USA. It's also a bit of a sabotage strategy. Since the expansion with Turkey would be such a massive undertaking, lots of fundamental reforms in the EU would necessary but difficult. This could force the EU to focus once more and only on its economic aspect.
Can you stop having a hardon for the games industry! It's like you just learned about tax breaks in school and now you think it's the only way for businesses to grow.
The games industry is the new telephone services industry, it's going to be gone in 5-10 years, shipped off to China, India, South America, where the workforce will be cheaper and workers will be technically competent due to our export of education.
If you want to make this car industry decision from France legal, France will have to leave the EU. Because it affects the very core of the European Union, which is still the common market. Once you give 1 country the possibility to either subsidize certain industries, or tax other ones extra hard, in order to "protect the own economy", it ends the whole principle of that common market. You're talking about "making this an exception to the rule because it was critical for France". But you can't make exceptions to this ground principle of the Union, especially not only at the point when it starts to become critical. Once France can protect it's car industry, every other country will too. This is not some sort of assumption. It would happen. Not to mention, once countries with a car industry start protecting those industry, other countries, who don't have an interest in the car industry, will start wanting to protect the industries they do have an interest in. The European Union as a whole just will cease to exist. Simple as that. The race to the bottom I explained, would happen. Because once one member state starts a protective measures, it is cheating on the others. It's a form of free riding. Not one other country would stand for it.
This is also the reason why Europe has to come up with rules, that are so easily ridiculed. It's to create a level playing field. A famous example is how the EU explained how cucumbers should to look like. The UK tabloids had a hoot portraying it as a prime example of how the EU is just fucking with us, total nitpickers. However, even when it comes to something as simple as cucumbers, the EU has to make sure that (hidden) protective measures are not put in place by countries. Lets say that spain produces cucumbers that always weigh more than 500 grams, while France's cucumber industry almost exclusively mini ones, only weighing at most 400 gram. A hidden protection could be put into place by France by saying that cucumbers have to weigh less than 500 grams or they can't be sold in France. EU steps in and says: cucumbers weigh from 100 to 1000 grams, and all those that fall between those limits, have to be allowed for sale in every member state. Don't underestimate the inventiveness of countries to try and cheat the system. Belgian lawnmowers produce 70 decibels on average, Dutch ones produces 60 decibels. Holland could put a law in place limiting the amount of decibels a lawnmower is allowed to make to 69 decibels, making it effectively impossible for Belgium to export their lawnmowers. EU steps in, and in this case, the chances are high that if the technology to reduce the sound of lawnmowers is common place and cheap, they'd agree with Holland and say that the maximum limit must be 69 decibels. That way the Belgian industry is forced to comply to better, more demanding rules. Consumers get better from it, industries are modernized, and a level playing field for all lawnmower producers so that they can only compete with each other by reducing prices or going even further down the limit in sound production.
It's this basic principle that is the foundation of the EU. It's this reason why you can't allow France to suddenly start protective measures for its car industry. No matter how good it might sound for the French, and would indeed be awesome if this was somehow made an *exception*, something that only the French could do, it might (not even sure) be beneficial for them. However, this is all hypothesis, because it wouldn't be an *exception* only for this industry, only for France. Every country would do it in every sector, making it a lose-lose situation for all, going back to the pre-WWII situation in Europe which was pretty much dramatic economic wise, with obvious repercussions for social and foreign relation situations as well. I hope you understand what I'm saying, that this level playing field without exceptions benefits everyone, and that free riding might be even better for individual countries, but undermines the whole system nullifying the benefits for everyone. Because if you don't understand or believe this, it would drag us into a debate on basic economics, which (and this sounds very arrogant :-/ ) I would win. Every evidence says that the common market has been immensely advantageous for everyone involved. I find it hard to understand, how someone who lives inside the market, and experiences it every day, can't see this. Perhaps some broader and historical perspective is necessary I guess. I think it is caused by an understandable reflex to fault the EU for every thing that goes wrong, because the EU is something abstract, something that affects our lives without us knowing exactly how or why. Not to mention, because most people don't know how the EU works, it's the perfect scape goat for national politicians when things go wrong. You should wonder why Sarkozy proposed these measures. He knows it's not allowed, and he knows it wouldn't work. But it sounds good in the ears of the French, and because it won't be allowed by the EU, Sarkozy can profile himself as the good guy being held back by the backward EU.
Lastly, you don't like an "additional form of government that can decide on things". After what I've said, I hope you see how this government is necessary. The member states are notorious opportunists, and if they couldn't be reminded of the rules of the common market, and be forced to comply to them, you can pack the Union up in a minute and all go home. Why does it need an administration? Because it has to monitor the market, study and decide on conflicts like the lawnmower example I made, and create new rules to continue in strengthening the market, preventing loopholes and free riding, and a system to enforce the law on countries. So the European Commission and Council of Ministers are a necessity for the common market to work. But who gives them the right to decide how much decibels a lawnmower can make? Well, despite the members of the EC and CoM being democratically elected by the European people, it might be a good thing that there is a directly elected organ that controls everything. An extra checks-and-balances link (similar to that of most nation states) to make sure that the EU functions well, and in the interest of the people, consumers and producers alike. And that is the Parliament. But what if countries don't apply to the rules set out by the common market, or some rules are simply dubious? Well, you need a judicial system to decide on these matters.
So you see, even if you completely limit the European Union to an economic area, all the institutions that are in place right now, are absolutely necessary for it to work. The only one that is just an addition, is the European Council of State Leaders. This body doesn't have any legislative, executive or judicial powers. It's put in place to appease the state leaders who have a hard time losing some control over everything. The European Council has given itself the job to provide some road-map for the far future, some goals for the EU in the general sense, and to talk about matters that are very pressing and current.
Edit: oh, and I'd like to add that the Agricultural policy is one of the few thing people can have legitimate complaints about. Because that is an exception to the common market principles. Because it is good for only a few member states. And because the system of either subsidies or quotes don't work at all. This policy is a relic of the post-WWII mentality. It was put in place to prevent there from ever being another famine or general food shortage ever again. Everyone supported it back then. Agriculture was very important, and people (including state leaders) didn't have a big problem with a protectionist and sub-optimal system if it meant the food supply was guaranteed.
Thanks. Although a quick re-read on my part shows that the post is filled with grammatical errors. That's what you get for rushing things. But I guess it's readable non the less.
Two points, firstly, as demonstrated above, the European Union DOES have democratic accountability, this is why people appeal to the EU court of Human Rights etc all the time. The Parliament is elected by the people, the Commission and Ministers are essentially Bureaucrats elected by the people who were elected by the people, the national governments. The Leaders Council is made up of the political heads of state. Could it be MORE democratic? Absolutely I'm sure, next time they try to please stop consistently voting ideas down because of the Daily Mail. The Lisbon Treaty is a example of this. People seem to forget that all the people working in the EU come from the actual EU countries. If you want ultimate accountability for governing institutions you should start here, campaign to elect the House of Lords and the Whitehall bureaucracy! I also already made a point above that immigrants from the East are going home as living standards improve in their own countries. The EU also aids the policing of criminal gangs across borders, sharing information to allow them to be monitored and crushed for more efficiently than non-talking neighbour states. Again, just because the British press give it a bad name and choose to cover nothing about the EU parliament, doesn't mean it's not a essentially good and working institution.
When I talk about the legitimacy and democratic deficit, I don't mean the political movers and shakers in the European Union. I accept that the heads of European states are themselves democratically elected and therefore are in the position to represent their countries' interests within the EU - although I do question their collective judgement in the appointment of Barroso. However, the point I'm getting at is whether the people of Europe actually support the direction the EU is moving towards - that is an European super-state. The strong euroscepticism in this country and the rejection of French and Dutch voters in the European constitution referendum suggests to me that there is not. Therefore I am to conclude that there is a legitimacy deficit because despite the unhappiness of ordinary Europeans with the direction the EU is going, Brussels presses on regardless (see: European constitution/Lisbon treaty/Ireland). A democratic deficit is also evident when there are no mainstream parties who are willing to change the status quo or even keep to their manifesto pledge and hold a referendum...
OK. Australia and New Zealand are the only developed major states in their part of the world. Their closest neighbours are the ASEAN (SE Asia) countries, who are still developing economies wheras Australia is a developed one. It is a continent unto itself, is much larger that Western Europe, but supports only slightly more than half the population of the UK. Australia also has a load of its own resources and smaller island countries with them next door that it can easily bully.
Japan managed because it is a protectionist, developmental state, most of its markets were closed to foreign investment for a long time, (this also applies to S.Korea and China) and its people worked hard at manufacturing things on low wages for export. However since the burst of the bubble in 1990, Japan has stagnated badly, has spiralling government debt and a gigantic aging society problem (due to lack of immigration ironically) which means there are too few workers paying in to support OAPs. Japan works because of constantly spiralling debt being bought by its own savers (The Economist pointed out how this will be a MAJOR problem when half of them are dead by 2050 in a recent issue) and reliance on exports (which it will lose to China). Japan is also the main state pushing for an Asian EU equivalent, in order to control China in the future, lest every other state be swamped by Chinese resources. Japan and S.Korea are also subject to massive security treaties with the USA. Japan doens't even have an official armed forces of its own, just the JSDF. It also lacks a welfare state or anything like the Universal Healthcare coverage we have, though better than the USAs. Japan was reliant mostly on trade with the USA, soon it'll be reliant on trade with China. The threat of war in East Asia is a constant problem still, and to be honest, Japan was the first state to develop into a modern Western Style state in the whole region.
tl;dr - Aus + Japan, very different situations, Japan is completely reliant on the USA. Soon this will change to China. The comparison therfore with the UK works at first glance, but is in fact unreasonable due to differences in regional development as a whole. Oh and Japan and Australia are pushing for an Asian Community in the style and steps of the EU anyway.
When people start quoting The Economist at me, then it is time for me to bow out. I readily admit that I am a complete novice with the insides and outs of Asian economies. Anyway I never disputed that Britain economically benefits from the EU. I merely suggested that Britain would still be able to function as an independent country if it did leave the EU (which I'm not advocating). The idea that we wouldn't be able to just seems out of kilter considering how we managed to the contrary for centuries.
avaya said:
What a ridiculous statement to make. The world is very different now compared to 500yrs ago.
All this country has to export is Financial Services. There is not much else coming out of here that is actually worth anything.
Australia is an economy built on the export of natural resources. We don't have any.
New Zealand is a very poor example since there is very real talk of them joining up with Australia because a little island off the side can't compete.
Singapore's geography makes it perfect to be a trade hub with South East asia but it's in a very real dogfight with others in the region and is threatened by Hong Kong
Japan....Japan is utterly fucked, I don't know why you thought this was a good example.
Make no mistake we need the EU. Trying to claim otherwise is to live in denial and yes I would take Turkey into the union if they meet the criteria.
What I am suggesting is that if, hypothetically, we were no longer part of the EU, I do not think that Britain would be completely at lost. There's a number of avenues Britain could take to become more self-sufficient, although I do accept that in the event Britain would probably be poorer than it is now as an EU member state.
As for why I thought Japan was a good example - despite stagnate growth, Japan is the second largest economy in the world after the United States is it not? I would not consider Britain having the same GDP as Japan (as inconceivable as it is) a failure.
Souldriver said:
It can certainly be argued that the expansion went to fast. Especially Romania and Bulgaria. Those countries were far from ready to enter the Union, and the Union has allowed them in knowing they didn't comply to all the rules that were set out. On the one hand it is part of pragmatic policy: trying to bind them into the European influence sphere instead of alienating them by giving them the idea that they're just put on hold for eternity. But on the other hand the fact remains that the expansion has come very quick, perhaps too quick, and that the EU did not have the financial resources to back it up.
I still believe the expansion has been in our best economic interests. The simple principle "you're better off if your neighbors are too" still applies. And to tell you something that might interest you. When the 2004 expansion was prepared, every Western country wanted to make sure that their own economies were protected against the cheaper products from the East, causing an amount of special (temporary measures) in free trade. 4 years after the expansion studies showed that the Western market wasn't flooded with Eastern products, but exactly the other way around. The West saw their market shares grow dramatically, it turned out that the Western industries were more competitive than those of the East, and that the growth of the East was unexpectedly tempered by the joining to the Union. So at first, despite obvious problems, it was very clearly the West that benefited the most from the expansion.
The problems that arise with the expansion of the Union, is that the institutions are not adjusted to function with the added members. The voting rules have to be changed to prevent deadlock and democratic deficit. Which was one of the main reasons for the recent attempts at Treaty Changes. Changes the eurosceptics have shot down. Against their own interests, because 90% of the criticisms they mention to refuse and progress, would be solved by allowed the progress.
I'm glad someone agrees with me that the expansionism of the EU went too fast! I have no qualms about European enlargement in theory, but I do think that the Eastern European countries who joined the EU should made some pretty drastic changes to bring it more in line with Western Europe culturally, politically and economically. This failure is probably what turns the Eurosceptics off the EU more than anything else. And although I like the idea of freedom of movement in theory, I am not convinced that its benefits outweigh the negatives. Again, I think if the countries that join the EU were properly reformed and more in line with Western Europe before they joined, then the problems of the East would be less of a cause for concern for us.
On the subject of social policy. Social policy for a large part remains in the hands of the member states. And I like it that way too. I like for the EU to set minimal social standards and the protection of people, but countries should be allowed to do with the extra money bags they have to either hand it out in an even higher pension, or a daycare refund (just to say something). However, the reason why social policy is also a part of the EU competences, is because economic policy and social policy are intrinsically connected to one another. Countries could use social policies as a form of hidden protectionist measures. Or as a tool to attract foreign industries. I refer you to my previous posts, because I'm repeating myself here by mentioning races to the bottom, level playing fields, free riding behavior and cheating on the competition. It's the same reason why environmental laws exist. Not only to protect nature, but also to make sure the common market can function. That nobody blows up the system.
You make a convincing argument for the interdependency of social policy and economics. But when you say 'social policy for a large part remains in the hands of the member states', a study in Germany showed 84% of domestic legislation came from Brussels with only 16% coming from Berlin - there is little reason to believe that Britain is any different.
On the subject of Turkey. I'm divided on this. On the one hand the EU has treated Turkey in a rather unfair way, letting other countries, who do even worse in the progress reports, in the Union before them. Turkey was one of the very first countries to ask for membership, and the EU has never been clear on what Turkey can expect. Morocco has also asked to join the Union many decades ago, and than the EU swiftly said: hell no. But they didn't with Turkey. Instead they remain ambiguous towards it, and set out a bunch of rules to enter, only to change the rules (make the stricter) every time Turkey was on the verge of meeting every rule. It really has been an unfair treatment of the country, and for that alone I'm pissed the EU still hasn't given Turkey a clear timetable. It's also (again pragmatic) a matter of either trying to make them a part of the "European influence area" and make them look/act/be as much as ourselves as possible, rather than just repel them and driving them into a totally different direction (my fear: fundamentalist Islamic state given the region Turkey lies in). The promise of a possible membership alone has caused immense strides in political, social, economic, religious aspects of the country, not to mention rights and freedoms.
Fact of the matter is that Turkey remains a giant country, extremely poor by European standards, with lots of people, and many argue incompatible with the EU culture. The EU has poorly digested the previous expansion, so in my opinion it is too early to let them join, how sad I might find it for all the Turkish people, parties and groups that have worked for decades to make it possible.
I'd also like to mention something funny and peculiar. Countries like the UK are very eurosceptic, which would make them very scared of an expansion towards Turkey. Yet, in reality a lot of the eurosceptic politicians are pro Turkey membership. Why? Because the UK still sees itself as more of an Atlantic country, than a European continental country. And it sees Turkey as a possible ally in geopolitics, together with the USA. It's also a bit of a sabotage strategy. Since the expansion with Turkey would be such a massive undertaking, lots of fundamental reforms in the EU would necessary but difficult. This could force the EU to focus once more and only on its economic aspect.
For that reason alone, I could quite easily become pro-Turkey's membership. :lol
Seriously though, my concerns with Turkey's accession is its incompatibility with Western Europe as you covered in your post. To allow Turkey's accession at this current time would really be opening Pandora's box.
Can someone just make a "UK PoliGAF - Europe, in or out?" thread?
Every other bit of news people post is just getting lost amongst a sea of text and repeated argument which has being going on for pages and pages. Positions are too ingrained.
It's turning the election thread into a circumcision one
), but right now I don't have a lot of time. Sorry. It'll be for tomorrow.
