The European Union - Discussion.

Alright people, we normally talk about the US, let's talk about the EU!

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

What do you actually know about it, and what do you think of it?

I'll go first, writing from a British perspective.

I'll be honest, I'm a Eurosceptic - I regard the EU as authoritarian, undemocratic and usually corrupt to greater or lesser degree. Moving the EU Parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg for 12 parliamentary sessions just to satisfy French vanity is a colossal waste of money and to me sums up the EU's unaccountability to the citizens of the member countries.

Moving the European Parliament:
http://www.rferl.org/content/european_parliament_traveling_circus/24557376.html

Although I think there's been an outbreak of common sense:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2510535/European-Parliament-scrap-Strasbourg-HQ-make-Brussels-sole-seat.html

Fingers crossed - I don't like my money being wasted by Government quangos.

EU Democratic deficit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_European_Union

I also believe that the EU can never function as a single entity - each country ultimately follows it's own agenda and picks it's allies depending on what's being discussed. For example, one week Britain and Poland could work together against a German initiative, the next Poland could work against the UK in pursuit of it's own interests. Normally Germany and France work together and generally don't get on with the UK, although France and Britain work together on defence matters - mostly. This to me is not a good combination. Despite the efforts towards greater European integration, national interest normally trumps it.

The EU is the political model of the Solarian League! It just doesn't have an analogue for the SLN.

Yet.

France is the main mover behind greater military integration in the EU, whilst Britain is opposed to the concept as it believes it will weaken NATO. There's also some suspicion in British conservative circles that the French are doing it just to put one in the USA's eye. They also think that most of the smaller nations will effectively freeload, meaning that it'll mainly be British and French troops filling the body bags.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100026307/the-european-army-it-might-be-european-it-wont-be-an-army/

In addition, I think that trying to get the Germans to contribute anything militarily is like pulling teeth. The Bundeswehr may have good equipment, but training standards are supposedly not good:

http://birdflu666.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/concerns-over-german-military-grow/

http://news-su.1gb.ru/news/2011/6/24/the-bundeswehr-has-complained-about-the-poor-training-of-personnel/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/beer-brats-and-bad-behavior-german-elite-troops-in-afghanistan-marred-by-reports-of-misconduct-a-508800.html

Problem is, it's the German's who have the money and their loath to spend it on anything militaristic. I guess getting pummeled in two world wars does that....

So, I don't think Europe will ever manage to be a cohesive military power. Too much grit in the gears!

Britain has a long tradition of Euroscepticism and the Conservative party has promised to hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU if they win the next election here.

Here's a selection of articles on British Euroscepticism and the Wiki article on the proposed referendum:

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/08/eu-abbott.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroscepti ... ed_Kingdom

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

Would the UK actually vote to leave the EU if the populace was given the chance? There's a good question. Like the outcome of the Scottish Independence Referendum this September, it's impossible to predict with any real certainty.

Some more articles:

EU is the Sick Man of Europe:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/05/13/the-new-sick-man-of-europe-the-european-union/

Britain and the EU:
http://www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=6509

A French view:
https://ip-journal.dgap.org/en/ip-journal/topics/britain-outside-europe-french-view

A German view:
http://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publications/point-of-view/europe-after-a-british-eu-withdrawal.html

Fire away people!

Mike.

The EU has a huge problem. It is neither fish nor fowl. It either needs to merge into a single country or split apart into different countries.

The USA actually had a similar problem. Each of our states was independent and we needed to decide if we were going to be 13 states or 1 country. The first attempt was the articles of confederation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategor ... ederation/

The articles of confederation produced a lot of similar problems to what the EU is experiencing today and is uniformly regarded as disastrous. It lasted about 8 years. Fiscal policy was particularly disastrous. While the issues are not identical to the European issues, they do show a similar pattern of disfunction between individual states/countries and the relatively weak central authority.

A decision had to be made. Either 13 countries or 1. This halfway stuff was disastrous. The idea of one country was generally supported and the negotiations involved in creating the constitution were extremely contentious but resulted in a compromise government that almost everyone could live with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituti ... ted_States)

One of the biggest issues of contention was between the low population rural states and the high population metropolitan states. Various proposals were extensively debated before they finally settled on 1 house being based upon population with the second house having equal representation. The idea was that any legislation passed must appeal to both rural and metropolitan areas. Originally the equal representation house (Senate) was elected by the state legislatures, giving them a strong incentive not to tromp on states rights. If the EU goes this route they could have 1 house with equal representation and 1 house where the major counties dominate.

It wasn't perfect (the slavery clauses were particularly bad) but it has lasted in a reasonably stable form for a very long time. Almost 30x as long as the articles of confederation.

So the EU basically has 3 options at this point 1) Continue with their dysfunctional confederation until it collapses into German dominance 2) Devolve back into individual states or 3) Form a stronger central authority, the US form being one successful example of how to do it.

My best crystal ball guess. The UK will split off on it's own sooner or later, retaining some of the trade agreements in separate treaties. The rest of the EU will continue on their dysfunctional path until Germany takes over and dictates to the rest of the continent. We're already seeing that with the Euro crisis. The next crisis will further increase Germany's dominance. The following crisis will do the same etc etc until Germany runs the EU in fact if not in name.

biochem wrote:My best crystal ball guess. The UK will split off on it's own sooner or later, retaining some of the trade agreements in separate treaties. The rest of the EU will continue on their dysfunctional path until Germany takes over and dictates to the rest of the continent. We're already seeing that with the Euro crisis. The next crisis will further increase Germany's dominance. The following crisis will do the same etc etc until Germany runs the EU in fact if not in name.

From my own perspective, I'm not sure if Europe can become one entity. There's an awful lot of conflicting interests and historical animosity that gets in the way. No-one really likes Germany, the Swedes and Dutch would be appalled if the UK left as it would leave them at the tender mercies of more statist minded countries. The Greeks are in a hole economically, Italy's not much better and the German's are getting fed up bailing other countries out etc.

As for the UK leaving Europe, it would be nice, but I don't think Britain can manage entirely on it's own - there's too much of an economic incentive to stay in. If for example we'd set up an oil fund like the Norwegians did when North Sea oil was found, we'd at least have some form of cushion. As it is, that wealth was squandered by a government grabbing at a quick fix for the near-bankruptcy the UK was in during the 1970's. That, and the economy is too unbalanced toward the financial and service sectors. That's going to take decades to reverse, if any party's willing to do it.

Here's one analysis of how the US views the prospect of a UK exit:

https://ip-journal.dgap.org/en/ip-journal/topics/britainless-europe-us-view

Not in the US's strategic interests and it shows that the EU is aware of the ultra conservative view of Europe.

Mike.

I remember thinking when the EU was created that it was a masterful job to have managed to get all those countries to agree to uniform financial rules to create a sustainable Euro. I never considered that they had missed that minor step, and was astounded to find out that was the case when it all inevitably fell over.
An outsider like me can see that there are lots of similarities in a macro sense to the US. Weak central authority, widely different cultures across a large land mass, first world conditions overall, but significant challenges ahead.
I do recall the saying attributed to Wilbur Wright when he was asked what good is a plane that can only fly about 200mtrs. His response of "What good is a new born baby", was prophetic. Ever the optimist I hope that the Europeans can get their act together. Personally I enjoy spending time there, loving the culture, people, food, and scenery.
Friends from there loathe the soft corruption of overpaid and under worked EU representatives and bureaucrats, along with the myriad of petty rules they create.
Totally personally biased I admit, but I do prefer the European values and lifestyle to much of what I see of the US, so wish them well.

Hopefully the Constitution or treaties relevant to formation of the European Union include provisions for secession. This really caused problems for the US.

A provision for expulsion would be nice too.

I agree with Biochem in that The Eu needs to go one way or another in terms of integration. as it is, individual countries still have too much independance, and too much integration, to work properly. independance is great, until it threatens the unity of the EU. Integration is great, until it causes problems due to the independance of the countries.

namelessfly wrote:Hopefully the Constitution or treaties relevant to formation of the European Union include provisions for secession. This really caused problems for the US.

A provision for expulsion would be nice too.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (which is arguably a proto-constitution) covers secession from the EU:

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

Nothing for expulsion as such, but this wiki article does explore the concept of suspension:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#Suspension

There's also the thorny problem if an EU member breaks up as well, of particular interest to myself as a Scot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#Break-up_of_a_Member_State

Mike.

Spacekiwi wrote:I agree with Biochem in that The Eu needs to go one way or another in terms of integration. as it is, individual countries still have too much independance, and too much integration, to work properly. independance is great, until it threatens the unity of the EU. Integration is great, until it causes problems due to the independance of the countries.

That's the dichotomy.

No matter what the individual governments may want to do, they are still subject to their electorates who are largely content hanging onto their own national identities.

One of the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon was that each country should ratify the treaty. Ireland, because of it's constitution had to hold a referendum on that subject.

First time round, the Irish population rejected it, mainly due to the Government not giving the electorate enough information to make a proper decision. There was then a second referendum which passed.

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

There were also court cases in Germany, Czech Republic, the UK and there's a potential one in Poland.

Mike.

I'll be honest, I'm a Eurosceptic - I regard the EU as authoritarian, undemocratic and usually corrupt to greater or lesser degree. Moving the EU Parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg for 12 parliamentary sessions just to satisfy French vanity is a colossal waste of money and to me sums up the EU's unaccountability to the citizens of the member countries.

Completely agree.

The EU is the political model of the Solarian League! It just doesn't have an analogue for the SLN.

Not quite. But it IS far too close.
Did you know the origin of the EU? That the background was to cooperate so that Africa could be properly exploited together instead of fought over... Seriously pathetic to talk about it as a "peace project" when it was meant to become the next generation of colonialism.

France is the main mover behind greater military integration in the EU, whilst Britain is opposed to the concept as it believes it will weaken NATO. There's also some suspicion in British conservative circles that the French are doing it just to put one in the USA's eye.

Well, reality is that USA is doing all it can to prevent any European nation by itself or together to set up the support structure that allows it to wage serious warfare without USA going along with it.

After WWII, there was some reasonable justification for this insane system, but now it isn´t just obsolete, it´s causing massive problems and nerfs European military on anything beyond small scale.

They also think that most of the smaller nations will effectively freeload, meaning that it'll mainly be British and French troops filling the body bags.

*pfft*

Yeah right. They should take a look at exactly how much Denmark for example has done and is doing. Or Netherlands or Sweden.
It´s essentially rubbish, it´s a matter of national opinions rather than size that affects how much they add.

However, it should be vividly remembered that most nations entered the EU based on it specifically NOT being a military union.

It´s one of many reasons i voted NO to joining the EU, because i expected it to be pushed towards military union, AGAIN.

So, I don't think Europe will ever manage to be a cohesive military power. Too much grit in the gears!

I really, REALLY don´t WANT it to be. At least not beyond a certain level of "that might be cool/interesting".

Britain has a long tradition of Euroscepticism and the Conservative party has promised to hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU if they win the next election here.

And i would probably cackle madly with glee if the referendum showed a clear wish to NOT be part of the EU.
If nothing else that would force the EU to at least consider creating a procedure for nations to be able to leave.

Something that currently does not in any way or form exist. Which was another reason for my firm NO vote against EU.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (which is arguably a proto-constitution) covers secession from the EU:

In theory yes. Try talking about seriously actually leaving and the bureaucrats almost gets a heart attack from even thinking about the problems it will cause.

A decision had to be made. Either 13 countries or 1. This halfway stuff was disastrous. The idea of one country was generally supported and the negotiations involved in creating the constitution were extremely contentious but resulted in a compromise government that almost everyone could live with.

And the messed up political stage USA has now. And it´s going to get worse as more and more ways of exploiting and "manhandling" the system is figured out.

So the EU basically has 3 options at this point 1) Continue with their dysfunctional confederation until it collapses into German dominance 2) Devolve back into individual states or 3) Form a stronger central authority

It´s far more complex than that, and neither of those 3 options are actually realistic.

For one thing, there´s far too many EU supporters that are supporters based on the idea of making it more democratic.
Those people would automatically and forcefully reject all 3 of your options.
And there´s enough of them to make sure that they are taken firmly into account if changing anything.

the US form being one successful example of how to do it.

Don´t even joke about that. No, it most certainly isnt any more than the USSR was an equal opportunities club.

The Greeks are in a hole economically, Italy's not much better and the German's are getting fed up bailing other countries out etc.

It should be remembered however that a large part of this is thanks to the stupid implementation of the Euro.

For Greece(and Italy, Spain, Portugal and some few more), the euro is drastically overvalued, killing it´s massive tourism industry, even without the huge corruption issues, it would have been in BIG trouble.

While for Germany, thanks to the poor finances of Greece&Co devaluing the euro, Germany has a MASSIVE export advantage.

One more important thing about the euro should be noted though, and that is the fact that it is dangerously inflationary due to the disparity between member states.

A very simple example:
Before Finland joined the euro, prices in Sweden and Finland were mostly comparable, and easily compared thanks to there being lots of stuff being sold with the prices stated in both SEK and FIM as a lot of companies sold things in both nations.

However, after Finland replaced the FIM with the euro(while Sweden kept the SEK), there has been a steadily growing disparity between the pricetags.

Comparison, yearbooks for the comic "Herman Hedning":
1995, SEK 45, FIM 45
1997, SEK 49, FIM 49
2000, SEK 49, FIM 49
2002, SEK 45, euro 7.40 (very roughly SEK 74)
2005, SEK 55, euro 9.50
2008, SEK 59, euro 10.20

Interestingly, from 2010 only the Swedish price is on those sold in Sweden.
And while the SEK has gone up a bit in value over that time, the difference to Finland SHOULD have been minimal.
Yet the pricetag in euro is now roughly 50% higher than in SEK.

And this is another part of why the weaker euro economies are in so much trouble, wages are not going up nearly enough to offset the development that the above example shows.

I might add FYI, that technically, Sweden is required to join the euro, but after a national referendum rejected it, Sweden has intentionally kept a small part of it´s public finances so that it fails to qualify for entry into the euro.