European Union

[Walsingham]

I hope this won't be a topic to bore our non European members, both on general principle and because I'd like their views.

 

As some will be aware the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty means a further erosion of British sovereignty to the European Union (EU). The EU possesses some elected officials (MEPs), but their powers are minimal compared with the unelected mandarins and bureaucrats. I speak as someone who has family in the bureaucracy, and friends in the parliament.

 

I was once a European progressive, believing that Britain's future lay as a leader within Europe, not complaining from the sidelines. I used to see the non-democratic nature of the Union as a deliberate fudge by national assemblies to forestall the transition of too much power, and slightly stupid. I also greatly admired the fact that Europe had avoided a major war for nearly sixty years.

 

However, a few things have made me shift my position:

 

1. My view of other political cultures in the EU, most significantly Italy, are corrupt and positively dangerous to bond with

2a. My view that our inability to adopt a comon policy on the threat from Jihadist-Fascist extremism is evidence of unavoidable and potentially disastrous divergences of outlook

2b. The remarkable consistency and commonality of policy Britain has with its former colonies in the Commonwealth

3. The approach Germany and Austria have taken over Turkey which seems to imply they wish the EU to be a Christians only clubhouse, and damn the strategic-military-economic consequences

4. The ridiculous assumption of control evidenced by Brussels in criminal and financial cases

5. The heavy burden of financing the various functionaries and flapdoodles

 

Does the forum share my views, and do they share my revised opinion that Britain would be better served leaving teh EU and forming an alliance with its Commonwealth associates?

[Kaftan Barlast]

The real danger of the EU as a goverment is when they pass laws on things they know nothing about, such as the internet. The parlamentarians down in Brussels/Strasbourg seem to make a point of being even less informed about whats going on than their national counterparts.

 

 

Also, no degos please. Yes, Im talking about you, Italy.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Kaftan Barlast

[Gorgon]

I dunno about Turkey. I think there must be a limit after which you can't really call it a 'European' union, and on the other hand it's a good thing if it can promote human rights. They need to can the death penalty first and admit to their own problems in dealing with their minorities, so they can start doing it differently. I know this sounds a bit hypocritical with the extreme right on the upturn Europe, but still...

[Morgoth]

Turkey has a long way to go before they're ripe to join the EU.

 

Otherwise, typical British EU scepticism. Be glad you're in the EU, because you depend on it very.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Morgoth

[Theseus]

Whats the exact point of the EU? I think the Federal Gov in the US was suppose to be more like a EU, with less power. DO you think it could become as big as the federal government in the US?

[Gorgon]

The big advantage is the common market, the joined foreign policy initiative is doomed to failure, too many conflicting interests. We certainly don't want a king of the EU capable of deploying troops by him/her-self, and it will never be a power block to rival the US.

[Purkake]

Damn ungrateful Brits *shakes fist*. You can leave any time you want.

[213374U]

4. The ridiculous assumption of control evidenced by Brussels in criminal and financial cases

Indeed. Weren't you talking about "cheap votes" in some other thread, though? The way the EC works, democracy plays a very small role. And they have done away with separation of powers, too, with an executive organ that has, for all intents and purposes, the attributes of a judicial authority.

 

I see your point - the European directives and legislation promoting empowerment of the local government, coupled with the siphoning of sovereignty off national governments and to the Euro institutions, are an obvious effort to promote political integration and strengthen Euro power at the cost of national sovereignty. Is that good or bad?

 

Maybe you'd be better off with the CW... but would they want you?

[kirottu]

The real danger of the EU as a goverment is when they pass laws on things they know nothing about, such as the internet. The parlamentarians down in Brussels/Strasbourg seem to make a point of being even less informed about whats going on than their national counterparts.

 

I remember when EU tried to hire dolphin watchers(3, if memory serves) for the sea between Finland and Sweden. They were supposed to check fishing boats and such so no dolphins get stuck in to their nets or something.

[Gorgon]

An enormous bureaucracy of experts in various fields are constantly busy writing reports and recommendations that only the initiated will ever read. The admission criteria in stages with various deadlines for, I think it was Poland, weighted in at 15 kilogram in paper, more for the hardcover versions.

[Humodour]

I hope this won't be a topic to bore our non European members, both on general principle and because I'd like their views.

 

As some will be aware the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty means a further erosion of British sovereignty to the European Union (EU). The EU possesses some elected officials (MEPs), but their powers are minimal compared with the unelected mandarins and bureaucrats. I speak as someone who has family in the bureaucracy, and friends in the parliament.

 

I was once a European progressive, believing that Britain's future lay as a leader within Europe, not complaining from the sidelines. I used to see the non-democratic nature of the Union as a deliberate fudge by national assemblies to forestall the transition of too much power, and slightly stupid. I also greatly admired the fact that Europe had avoided a major war for nearly sixty years.

 

However, a few things have made me shift my position:

 

1. My view of other political cultures in the EU, most significantly Italy, are corrupt and positively dangerous to bond with

2a. My view that our inability to adopt a comon policy on the threat from Jihadist-Fascist extremism is evidence of unavoidable and potentially disastrous divergences of outlook

2b. The remarkable consistency and commonality of policy Britain has with its former colonies in the Commonwealth

3. The approach Germany and Austria have taken over Turkey which seems to imply they wish the EU to be a Christians only clubhouse, and damn the strategic-military-economic consequences

4. The ridiculous assumption of control evidenced by Brussels in criminal and financial cases

5. The heavy burden of financing the various functionaries and flapdoodles

 

Does the forum share my views, and do they share my revised opinion that Britain would be better served leaving teh EU and forming an alliance with its Commonwealth associates?

 

I'm resigned to the fact that the EU will always exist and always be a European-only clubhouse, even though the only difference between countries like Canada, Australia, and Britain is distance. That said, I don't really want Australia to join it anyway; merely to have the option. Australia is better off going it alone with our neighbours in Asia - New Zealand, Indonesia, the Pacific islands, Thailand, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, etc. Ever since Britain ditched us for the EU, we've had to strike trade deals with Asia instead and it has produced phenomenal results.

 

I think the EU is for the best, as long as: a) the Treaty of Lisbon is largely where the enlargement of 'federal' powers ends (I'm not sure this will happen), and b) it becomes more democratic (I'm not sure this will happen).

 

Heck, I dunno. I don't think Europe needs the Treaty. Maybe that means I'm against it? Who cares what I think? I'm not a European!

Edited November 8, 2009 by Krezack

[Gorth]

The EU was one of the reasons to leave Europe behind. When they went from being a "easier to trade, less protectionism" organisation to the wet dreams of eurocrats who wants to turn it into a "United States of Europe", it lost lost its appeal, its transparency and much of its pretense at being "democratic". The bigger a monster you create, the harder a time you will have to control it afterwards. Few governments had the guts to ask their populations what they wanted and those who did, regretted asking the people afterwards. Sort of telling, isn't it?

[butterfly]

The EU was one of the reasons to leave Europe behind. When they went from being a "easier to trade, less protectionism" organisation to the wet dreams of eurocrats who wants to turn it into a "United States of Europe

 

 

The 'United States of Europe' concept wasn't something invented after the Union was founded (EGKS). But was the dream of many of the leading figures who drove the formation of the union, and not particulary a secret dream. Those people had observed that nationalism was a strong factor in the starting of wars and other ills. I can't say myself that i can find many redeaming factors in nationalism.

[Walsingham]

The EU was one of the reasons to leave Europe behind. When they went from being a "easier to trade, less protectionism" organisation to the wet dreams of eurocrats who wants to turn it into a "United States of Europe

 

 

The 'United States of Europe' concept wasn't something invented after the Union was founded (EGKS). But was the dream of many of the leading figures who drove the formation of the union, and not particulary a secret dream. Those people had observed that nationalism was a strong factor in the starting of wars and other ills. I can't say myself that i can find many redeaming factors in nationalism.

 

Before I get up to full steam let me say that I agree with your sentimenta bout warfighting, as odd as they may sound coming from me. I said so in my opener. However, I think your view of nationalism is quite a euro-centric one. Because I set our views on the dangers of nationalism against my experiences worldwide with cultures where the nation is treated with contempt. Unless one surrenders a portion of personal interest and personal pride to the anonymous collective then corruption, and crime inevitably result. Since the failure to recognise the state makes crime logically redundant, and corruption a mere service to lesser loyalties.

 

In fact I'm going to add that point to my list of grievances with the EU. People struggle already with connecting to their national collectives. What possible nationalist feelings could accrue to a European super state?

 

~~

 

The USA analogy is most apposite. That was conceived as a loose confederation - at least so I was taught - and by slow but inexorable logic the centre, as upper authority and repository of the greatest patronage and wealth, exerted centripetal force on power.

 

~~~

I do not argue that Europe is irrelevant. But I do argue that our union is not working out. Nor for the reasons I laid out, do I think it CAN work out. I support free trade amongst us, and I support NATO, but I don't support political union and the transfer of sovereign powers.

[Gorgon]

But Europe is not an area where the lack of recognition of nation and government leads to corruption and crime, and the indifference to Europe as a nation is a good thing as far as it makes aggressive nationalism unlikely.

[Aristes]

Nationalism is not an evil. It's merely a reflection of the reality that people naturally combine into groups that look to the interests or perceived interests of the members. These work themselves into larger groups that tie together the interests of the smaller groups. At some point the interests of perceived interests of the individual constituent groups leaves someone out in the cold. The idea of a 'global citizenry' is not only stupid. It's dangerous. I mean, it's stupid and dangerous for the vast majority of people who post here since it would pave the way for their wealth to be taken and given to some other group that has less. That sounds noble and good until you find yourself enjoying a substantially lower standard of living and realize that the world is still just as screwed up as it was before anyhow.

 

In answer to you, Walsh, I can only speak as an American. I know I know, that paints me eeevviiiiiil from the outset, but I prefer to talk about these things as an adult. If I answer you with candor, maybe we can have a frank discussion.

 

As an American, the idea of Europe becoming truly unified is frightening as hell. After all, while the military balance would probably still favor the United States as it stands now, I believe the unified economic and political clout of the union would probably be equal to or greater than the United States. Don't get me wrong, I don't suggest that a true European Union would equate to an enemy a la the Soviet Union, or even an uneasy adversay in the manner of the PRC. We'd probably continue to have good relations, even though we'd have increased polarization over global matters. Nevertheless, adding another global contender is not in American interests. That's the simple truth. Better to have a number of smaller allies whose interests are more or less aligned with your own than a single large ally who can work independently towards the same goals and who is better able to oppose your interests in favor of his own. Of course, the reality is that European countries already work towards their own interest, but those countries would be in a much better position to do so as part of a real union.

 

My worries are somewhat calmed by the fact that I don't think the Europeans are truly unified. They don't have a true desire to relinquish national interests for the sake of the union. They talk like they do, but I don't believe that's the case. They don't have the drive to face global problems alone. They have a Russian neighbor to the east with a considerable chip on his shoulder. They have a Chinese neighbor to the far east who, by sheer population, is scary as hell. While the Europeans are more than willing to work with either the Russians or Chinese, and even though they speak to global matters in all areas of the world, by and large the United States is the best choice in terms of alignment. Yep, the bad ol' unstable US. The Europeans are too provincial in their parts and not willing enough to throw their considerable power behind a unified government.

 

As a chauvinistic American, I love our Brit heritage and I want the crazy old UK to maintain its special relationship with the United States. There are neither permanent allies nor permanent enemies, but I do hope that we keep our British friends.

 

As a human being, trying to look past my own nationalism, I have to say that I like those wacky democracies. If I weren't Catholic, I'd claim republicanism as my faith. I believe that all people yearn to be free. In their hearts, they want to be the masters of their own fates and they chafe at slavery. I'm too much of a realist to think that everyone would think of things in these terms, but I do believe that most people, given the choice, would rather be able to choose what they do than to have it dictated to them. We are chained by our bodies to a world in which we cannot ever be truly free, but we all yearn for freedom. A bit preachy, perhaps, but that's exactly how I feel. I want democracy to thrive not because I want to spread 'American Imperialism.' I want democracy to thrive because I believe all people should be free and that the government of countries should be ruled by institutions that sustain freedom to perpetuity. A European Union run by bureaucrats not beholden to their constituency is, therefore, evil.

[Walsingham]

So, to summarise: you are against a non-democratic union, and are concerned about that union forming a competitive power bloc?

 

I think the latter is far from being paranoid. After all, what would be the point of a unified Europe if not to act as a bloc?

[Gorgon]

Acting as a block in trade is one thing, foreign policy another. I don't like the notion, but just to play the devil's advocate, imagine if a capable EU deterrent had existed when people started going crazy in Yugoslavia.

[Walsingham]

Acting as a block in trade is one thing, foreign policy another. I don't like the notion, but just to play the devil's advocate, imagine if a capable EU deterrent had existed when people started going crazy in Yugoslavia.

 

Russia would have felt very threatened. Although having said that it was Yeltsin back then, wasn't it?

[213374U]

As a human being, trying to look past my own nationalism, I have to say that I like those wacky democracies. If I weren't Catholic, I'd claim republicanism as my faith. I believe that all people yearn to be free. In their hearts, they want to be the masters of their own fates and they chafe at slavery. I'm too much of a realist to think that everyone would think of things in these terms, but I do believe that most people, given the choice, would rather be able to choose what they do than to have it dictated to them. We are chained by our bodies to a world in which we cannot ever be truly free, but we all yearn for freedom. A bit preachy, perhaps, but that's exactly how I feel. I want democracy to thrive not because I want to spread 'American Imperialism.' I want democracy to thrive because I believe all people should be free and that the government of countries should be ruled by institutions that sustain freedom to perpetuity. A European Union run by bureaucrats not beholden to their constituency is, therefore, evil.

Freedom is a state of mind, not a political or administrative configuration. People today are "free" to choose which car to buy or what college they want to attend, but they have a hard time thinking freely - we are constantly bombarded by opinions of alleged "experts", political loads of hot air, and outright false data and lies. I take offense at this obstinately Western-centric mentality that democracy has a monopoly on "freedom". Consider yourself glove-slapped, good sir.

 

One of the arguments used to defend the lack of transparency and accountability in the Euro exec organs is that the matters they deal with are of a highly technical nature, and the decisions they must make have to reflect that, which makes them ill-suited for popular consultation. And, to a degree, it's difficult not to agree. But it's the ages-old question: "I'm better than you, so I call the shots and you shut up". Only they aren't appealing to a birthright to back that, but to a professional career. That is both decidedly undemocratic and sensible. Do we place ideology and PR (which, don't kid yourself, is what decides elections) or capacity higher in the hierarchy of importance for traits that leaders should have?

 

No need to worry about Euros becoming a credible rival to the US anytime soon, though. As you said, we're far too provincial for that. A shame, but the question is whether the US is better off being the sole superpower, or they could benefit from the help of a strong Western Roman Em... er, European Union.

Edited November 8, 2009 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

Surely democracy is an essential pre-requisite of freedom? Just because people in democracies aren't free in their heads doesn't invalidate that, any more than the fact that many people with legs don't go jogging makes having legs irrelevant to going jogging.

[213374U]

Surely democracy is an essential pre-requisite of freedom?

But is it? Aristes seemed to be pushing the idea that "democracy is necessary and sufficient for freedom". You suggest simply that it is necessary. I contend that it is neither as, for starters, the concept of freedom predates democracy. Your analogy is only valid as a rebuttal to the sufficiency relationship - having legs isn't sufficient to go jogging, even if it's necessary. But I think you are narrowing down the terms to make a point. In a broader sense: it's no longer a matter of jogging, but a matter of simply moving around, and so having legs isn't necessary anymore - jogging isn't the only way to change places possible for man. Likewise, I think that for your argument to work, you need to concrete what "freedom" means exactly in this context. If you mean "the natural right to have one's expressed political opinion count for something", then yes, democracy is necessary. But that's a bit of a circular argument, don't you think?

 

Democracy is necessary and sufficient for democracy.

Edited November 8, 2009 by 213374U

[Darth InSidious]

A few points; first, Turkey has never, geographically or culturally, been part of Europe, and trying to combine a radically different cultural heritage within Europe is a recipe for disaster, particularly given Turkey's record on a variety of subjects.

 

Second, regardless of what the EU was envisioned as, it was sold to the UK as a free trade agreement. And what have we gained from greater federalisaton? What does it profit us? Switzerland manages perfectly well without EU membership.

 

The EU costs the British taxpayer an enormous sum, and out of it we get legislation we weren't asked to vote on, which is sometimes incompatible with existing British legal structures and which sometimes even contravenes foundations of our own law. We have gained little from greater involvement in Europe, and it seems like we're the only country that tries to implement all this crap, large chunks of which is irrelevant and unhelpful.

 

There are also serious questions, continually dismissed, about our sovereignty. We have no interest in being a 51st State, so why should we become part of a USE? Better to have kept our options more open.

 

As a chauvinistic American, I love our Brit heritage and I want the crazy old UK to maintain its special relationship with the United States. There are neither permanent allies nor permanent enemies, but I do hope that we keep our British friends.

1. It's not your history, it's ours. Get your own damn heritage.

2. There is no special relationship, and some of us are sick to death of being run roughshod over by your foreign policy objectives.

3. Crazy, like zany and wacky, is an epithet that belongs only to idiotic redheads in 50s sitcoms. No, thank you.

 

Damn ungrateful Brits *shakes fist*. You can leave any time you want.

If only we could. You seem to think we've been given a choice.

 

Surely democracy is an essential pre-requisite of freedom? Just because people in democracies aren't free in their heads doesn't invalidate that, any more than the fact that many people with legs don't go jogging makes having legs irrelevant to going jogging.

1. Was the Roman Republic a democracy?

2. Is the UK a democracy?

3. Is the EU in any way democratic?

4. Is freedom a post-industrial invention?

 

Think carefully about the answers.

[Guard Dog]

or they could benefit from the help of a strong Western Roman Em... er, European Union.

 

Thats it, this thread is over and 213374U wins!

 

 

In all seriousness, the EU should worry the citizens of Europe. It was concieved as an economic alliance and is quickly and by fiat becoming a de facto European central government. There is a very real and inherent danger in surrendering the sovreignty of your own soil to a political body who does not care about or represent your interests and over whom you can exert no influence. Historicly speaking such a thing can only be escaped at the cost of blood.

 

Actually there are many, many Americans discussing the same things following the many and flagrant Constitutional trangressions and power siezures by the US Federal Government over the past two administrations.

[Rostere]

I see no problem with creating a stronger European central authority in itself. On the other hand, if it's going to look like the current one, I wouldn't want it. If it's supposed to work, you will have to design a democratic system that works for something as large as Europe. It would be by far the world's largest democracy, and perhaps also the most racially and culturally diverse so there's a difficult task for generations of politicians to come (I think).

 

Anyway, I agree with Wals and the other Europeans about Italy. I do not think at all there is any risk for a European civil war or any sort of more serious inner conflict. However, if the EU should gain a more powerful central authority, we should be careful to avoid conflict with other foreign powers. I'm of course primarily talking about Russia, but also about the US. Russia and the emerging European Union are already practically locked in a bear's embrace over the Eastern European countries.