Junker calls Check

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...future-europe/

Quote:

---

Scenario 2. Nothing but the single market


The EU gives up on trying to resolve divisive issues such as "migration, security or defence" and co-operation on key issues becomes more bilateral than EU based. Radically, the EU also shrinks the regulatory burden by dropping two pieces of legislation for every one it passes.


By 2025 this will mean the functioning of the Single Market becomes the "raison d'etre" of the EU, strengthening the free movement of goods and capital, but making it tougher in other areas, like free movement of people.


Pros and cons: The EU's "re-centred priorities" focusing on the core single market issue, makes decision-making "simpler" but it also restricts the ability of the EU to deliver to its citizens. "This may widen the gap between expectations and delivery at all levels."

---

So...

The has the UK preparing to leave has actually triggered a real discussion of change?

I say we scrap the whole EU and return to a policy of Germany First, revitalize our military and produce locally instead of importing. We also need a wall toward the east. We'll have to see how we divide Poland between ourselves and Russia because we're overpopulated and need to secure the oil pipelines before Poland can blackmail us. Naval uparmamanet is key for this to keep the pesky island crazies at bay, but maybe the Russians are willing to help with that for a while.

You'd almost think husar wasnt taking this well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

You'd almost think husar wasnt taking this well.

---

I can finally play Age of Empires with reality, what is not to like?
Obviously I want my nation to win and become glorious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

We also need a wall toward the east.

---

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I say we scrap the whole EU and return to a policy of Germany First, revitalize our military and produce locally instead of importing. We also need a wall toward the east. We'll have to see how we divide Poland between ourselves and Russia because we're overpopulated and need to secure the oil pipelines before Poland can blackmail us. Naval uparmamanet is key for this to keep the pesky island crazies at bay, but maybe the Russians are willing to help with that for a while.

---

If this has been proposed a year ago the UK Referendum would probably have been solidly for "In". I don't think the fact this is being proposed as the UK is gearing up to leave is a coincidence, not that you can stop Brexit now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

If this has been proposed a year ago the UK Referendum would probably have been solidly for "In". I don't think the fact this is being proposed as the UK is gearing up to leave is a coincidence, not that you can stop Brexit now.

---

Well, let me call it a bad thread opener then, because your presentation was rather confusing for someone who did not have the time to read the entire article and mostly superfluous for someone who did. You also seemed to base your conclusion at the end only one the one scenario you presented (without marking it as a direct quote in any way so I thought it was partially your idea at first) as though this was the course now officially chosen by the EU. :dizzy2:

You may want to scold me for answering without reading the entire article, but that doesn't change the issue of quotation.

Now, ignoring that and having read a bit more of the article, I can only wonder what exactly your point is given that he also made four other potential proposals. Proposal 2 may be the "Brexit-proposal" and you may be right in saying it came to be only due to Brexit, but there are four others, which seem to be equally valid. In fact I would personally prefer Proposal 5, but I assume, like Mr. Juncker, that a lot of people would dislike that scenario a lot. Then again the residents of the 13 colonies originally didn't want to federalize either and nowadays they can't live without one another. So :shrug:

What I like about proposal 5 is that it would make the people take EU elections more seriously and that it would force EU politicians to take better care of everyone and solve the problems of everyone to a greater extent. I still think decentralization does to us what it did to every video game store of the 90ies, they all competed and got eaten by the big ones who could outcompete them. The idea that this is not possible on a national level is something you should tell the African tribes that got colonized while they enslaved one another for their new overlords.

Look at corporations, they get the idea, they either grow, eat the small ones or merge. EADS can now compete with Boeing and Boeing can compete with EADS. Both in the US and here the number of aircraft manufacturers has shrunk a whole lot as corporations merged and bought one another to stay competitive. You can't seriously think that if Messerschmidt, Dornier, Fokker, etc. hadn't merged into EADS, that they'd all rake in the international contracts now based on designs they came up with using a millionth of Boeing's design budget...

It's only on a government level that people can't see the writing on the wall while the US, China and Russia compete about influence and power over all the small ones. I don't think Crimea would be Russian now had Ukraine been in the EU or NATO at the time, for example.

Again, if that is what Europeans want, as someone from the most powerful nation, I'ma get my slaver gear ready...

My point was that it was ironic that, now that Britain is gearing up to leave the EU the EU's governing class is talking about real reform.

I take your citicism on formatting, OP has been edited.

Proposal 2 isn't the "Brexit Proposal", it's what the UK has always wanted - just trade - without the hassle. The lack of engagement like this is why people voted to leave, really, and not immigration. The British spent decades arguing for reform to the EU's governing bodies, to the CAP, and were repeatedly blocked and call "un-European" by some. Now we've had enough and are leaving.

This is also one of the points I made in favour of voting out, you may recall, where I said an "In" vote would only confirm the belief all was fine with the EU and only an "out" vote could spur real change.

EU, as it is, is far from perfect. Its own emphasis on democracy to a ridiculous level has rendered any kind of decision making extremely difficult. In normal situations, it is a hindrance, but one that can be worked around, albeit slowly. In situations like we had for the last several years (near bankruptcies, instability, migrants...), in which something quick and decisive needs to be done, EU is impotent.

That leads to shady dealings, pressures on certain states/factions that are, or may be perceived as, undemocratic. In times of crisis and instability, people naturally tend to find more radical solutions much more appealing.

So, when we're talking about this, there are effectively two issues. One that EU is in fact bloated, inefficient, more bureaucratic and less transparent than most people would like, and another, which is the natural inclination of people to blame them for all the problems. Them is anyone who isn't us, and who us is changes constantly, depending on the times. Naturally, definitions of them and us are very fluid, so it usually works all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

My point was that it was ironic that, now that Britain is gearing up to leave the EU the EU's governing class is talking about real reform.

I take your citicism on formatting, OP has been edited.

Proposal 2 isn't the "Brexit Proposal", it's what the UK has always wanted - just trade - without the hassle. The lack of engagement like this is why people voted to leave, really, and not immigration. The British spent decades arguing for reform to the EU's governing bodies, to the CAP, and were repeatedly blocked and call "un-European" by some. Now we've had enough and are leaving.

This is also one of the points I made in favour of voting out, you may recall, where I said an "In" vote would only confirm the belief all was fine with the EU and only an "out" vote could spur real change.

---

I honestly expected it.

When a institution is so set in it's ways as the EU it cannnot reform without a massive shock; Brexit was that shock and now that the illusion of inevitable continuation has been shattered the EU leadership has to evolve or die.

It's the same sort of attitude adjustment the double shocks of the American and French revolutions inspired in British politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

My point was that it was ironic that, now that Britain is gearing up to leave the EU the EU's governing class is talking about real reform.
[...]
Proposal 2 isn't the "Brexit Proposal", it's what the UK has always wanted - just trade - without the hassle. The lack of engagement like this is why people voted to leave, really, and not immigration. The British spent decades arguing for reform to the EU's governing bodies, to the CAP, and were repeatedly blocked and call "un-European" by some. Now we've had enough and are leaving.

This is also one of the points I made in favour of voting out, you may recall, where I said an "In" vote would only confirm the belief all was fine with the EU and only an "out" vote could spur real change.

---

Well, I called it the Brexit proposal because it is a proposal that mirrors what Britain always wanted.
And that's exactly where the rub lies, and not just in "any reform would be good". A whole lot of people complained about more federalization and the Lisbon treaty and all that. Referenda were refused, more nationalist governments were elected and then the EU got stuck between those wanting more federalization and those wanting to return power to their national governments because even the few EU regulations we have now were already despotic injustices imposed on the good natives of nation X, Y or Z.
And then you see Sarmatian calling it too democratic whereas others say it lacks democratic legitimacy and so on and on. The problem is not that it lacks reform, it's that all the members want to reform it into something different from what the others want.

The problem is nationalism, a national pride that will lead to the destruction of all. :stare:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, I called it the Brexit proposal because it is a proposal that mirrors what Britain always wanted.
And that's exactly where the rub lies, and not just in "any reform would be good". A whole lot of people complained about more federalization and the Lisbon treaty and all that. Referenda were refused, more nationalist governments were elected and then the EU got stuck between those wanting more federalization and those wanting to return power to their national governments because even the few EU regulations we have now were already despotic injustices imposed on the good natives of nation X, Y or Z.
And then you see Sarmatian calling it too democratic whereas others say it lacks democratic legitimacy and so on and on. The problem is not that it lacks reform, it's that all the members want to reform it into something different from what the others want.

The problem is nationalism, a national pride that will lead to the destruction of all. :stare:

---

The problem is transfer of power without consultation - because most parties in most EU states are basically pro-EU it hasn't been possible for nations that want to stop or slow the process of Federalisation to vote for anti-integration parties that will actually govern. The Conservatives are probably the closest and they're split pretty much 50/50 for and against further integration in the long term.

The reality is that had we had Referendums on the Lisbon Treaty it would not have been a Brexit, there would be no Article 50 for us to invoke, and we would not be leaving - because we would have voted it down. There is simply to impetus and no appetite for integration - it's just that only the British were annoyed enough to risk the economic uncertainty of leaving.

EU "reform" has proceeded on the basis that anything is better than leaving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

The problem is transfer of power without consultation - because most parties in most EU states are basically pro-EU it hasn't been possible for nations that want to stop or slow the process of Federalisation to vote for anti-integration parties that will actually govern. The Conservatives are probably the closest and they're split pretty much 50/50 for and against further integration in the long term.

The reality is that had we had Referendums on the Lisbon Treaty it would not have been a Brexit, there would be no Article 50 for us to invoke, and we would not be leaving - because we would have voted it down. There is simply to impetus and no appetite for integration - it's just that only the British were annoyed enough to risk the economic uncertainty of leaving.

EU "reform" has proceeded on the basis that anything is better than leaving.

---

The problem then is that nations which don't want further integration don't leave. If they're a minority, why should they hold the other countries back? They can negotiate trade deals with the EU later on. It would seem silly especially of members that joined the block when federalization was already on the horizon. In that sense the Brexit could be a good thing as it makes the union more likely to be able to proceed towards federalization. Any other nations that don't want it can also trigger article 50 then I guess and if nothing is left after that, see my first post. :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The problem then is that nations which don't want further integration don't leave. If they're a minority, why should they hold the other countries back? They can negotiate trade deals with the EU later on. It would seem silly especially of members that joined the block when federalization was already on the horizon. In that sense the Brexit could be a good thing as it makes the union more likely to be able to proceed towards federalization. Any other nations that don't want it can also trigger article 50 then I guess and if nothing is left after that, see my first post. :whip:

---

OK - fair point - but let me ask you this:

When, during Federalisation, will Germany dissolve itself? Within the framework of a Federal Europe the German Federal Government is clearly obsolete - as is the Spanish one for that matter, the British Government likewise.

If you're really serious about Federalisation then you really have to think about what it means, how it will work, and how (and when) you will convince people to give up their national identity. On the other hand, countries like France, Poland and Italy are essentially unitary states and you would need to form new "regions" to dissolve their top-level government.

You'll also have to decide the final home of the EU Parliament, and form an Upper Chamber for it.

I don't see much of this happening in our lifetimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I don't think Crimea would be Russian now had Ukraine been in the EU or NATO at the time, for example.

---

1. in the EU - nothing would have changed.
2. in NATO - seeing how it was caught on the hop I doubt greatly NATO would react as it is supposed to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

OK - fair point - but let me ask you this:

When, during Federalisation, will Germany dissolve itself? Within the framework of a Federal Europe the German Federal Government is clearly obsolete - as is the Spanish one for that matter, the British Government likewise.

If you're really serious about Federalisation then you really have to think about what it means, how it will work, and how (and when) you will convince people to give up their national identity. On the other hand, countries like France, Poland and Italy are essentially unitary states and you would need to form new "regions" to dissolve their top-level government.

You'll also have to decide the final home of the EU Parliament, and form an Upper Chamber for it.

I don't see much of this happening in our lifetimes.

---

You shouldn't entirely dissolve the national governments, you just change their function.
The 16 German states have their own governments as well, which serve certain functions. Even more centralized countries like France have départements or other forms of more regional administration. You can't just do everything centralized.
The federalization would probably happen in several steps, where the EU would take on more functions over time. And the EU government would have to change in some ways itself, with a president/prime minister/chancellor as the head of state and so on.
One of the biggest problems I see are language barriers, like what if a third of the people can't understand the speeches of their own president anymore. Translation is not as good as hearing it in your mother tongue. As younger generations all learn English, this problem could be solved over time though (funny enough, without England itself being part of it...).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

OK - fair point - but let me ask you this:

When, during Federalisation, will Germany dissolve itself? Within the framework of a Federal Europe the German Federal Government is clearly obsolete - as is the Spanish one for that matter, the British Government likewise.

If you're really serious about Federalisation then you really have to think about what it means, how it will work, and how (and when) you will convince people to give up their national identity. On the other hand, countries like France, Poland and Italy are essentially unitary states and you would need to form new "regions" to dissolve their top-level government.

You'll also have to decide the final home of the EU Parliament, and form an Upper Chamber for it.

I don't see much of this happening in our lifetimes.

---

You shouldn't entirely dissolve the national governments, you just change their function.
The 16 German states have their own governments as well, which serve certain functions. Even more centralized countries like France have départements or other forms of more regional administration. You can't just do everything centralized.
The federalization would probably happen in several steps, where the EU would take on more functions over time. And the EU government would have to change in some ways itself, with a president/prime minister/chancellor as the head of state and so on.
One of the biggest problems I see are language barriers, like what if a third of the people can't understand the speeches of their own president anymore. Translation is not as good as hearing it in your mother tongue. As younger generations all learn English, this problem could be solved over time though (funny enough, without England itself being part of it...).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You shouldn't entirely dissolve the national governments, you just change their function.
The 16 German states have their own governments as well, which serve certain functions. Even more centralized countries like France have départements or other forms of more regional administration. You can't just do everything centralized.
The federalization would probably happen in several steps, where the EU would take on more functions over time. And the EU government would have to change in some ways itself, with a president/prime minister/chancellor as the head of state and so on.
One of the biggest problems I see are language barriers, like what if a third of the people can't understand the speeches of their own president anymore. Translation is not as good as hearing it in your mother tongue. As younger generations all learn English, this problem could be solved over time though (funny enough, without England itself being part of it...).

---

But what need for the German Federal Government after EU Federalisation? Surely the various states also have sub-divisions?

France has sub-divisions but not as many as as Germany, and they are not really of the same nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

But what need for the German Federal Government after EU Federalisation? Surely the various states also have sub-divisions?

France has sub-divisions but not as many as as Germany, and they are not really of the same nature.

---

That's the point, the sub-divisions can stay the way they are unless the people living there want to change them after a while.
The federal governments would stay in the sense that they would be responsible for applying the EU policies to their country/region.
The German states currently have a "minister-president", who is like a chancellor for that state, as well as a parliament, a minister of the interior, a minister of finance, minister of education, etc. The US states have a very similar model and I never saw you asking why we don't dispose of them. They don't have the same power as the federal government and can be overruled by it on some things, but they do provide a local representation to take care of local needs. Even cities often have their own "parliament", headed by the mayor and so on. To go even further, city districts can have their own mayors. Even certain differences in how they operate are usually no problem in the federated model.

What the federalization could change for example, would be certain educational standards for all of Europe, common monetary and tax policy and several other things. Especially tax is an area I would like to see centralized more and more because the competition effectively leads only to tax havens for corporations. Even Bavaria turned out to have given Ikea a tax deal with 1% corporate tax or something like that. The argument that corporations would leave if taxed properly doesn't fly if the market is large enough that they can't just give it a pass.

And that is the major driver for european unification, that global corporations can just play the individual countries against one another and thus drive the wealth divide further and further, whereas a united EU can dictate the terms as they wouldn't want to pass up on a market of >400 million people either way.

At the moment we have a half-arsed situation where Amazon sells products in Germany "from Luxembourg", but ships them from inside Germany and yet claims it only operates logistics in Germany which allows it to pay the workers less while the corporate tax and other laws are very low/lax in Luxembourg as well. Or look at Monaco, where tons of rich people live to avoid taxation and the plebs, while France, the country that fights with poverty problems, guarantees its defense. Which more or less means the French middle class lives in a problem zone and gets taxed (and may be required to die) to defend what is basically a rich people enclave. I don't even care why or how that may have come to be historically since we should let these medieval constellations behind and apply the same laws to everyone. Ideally this would even be done worldwide because it's basically the poor competing for the favor of the rich and that's not a healthy kind of competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

If you're really serious about Federalisation then you really have to think about what it means, how it will work, and how (and when) you will convince people to give up their national identity. On the other hand, countries like France, Poland and Italy are essentially unitary states and you would need to form new "regions" to dissolve their top-level government.

---

Actually Italy and France have first level sub-divisions similar to German Lander in terms of size and local flavour called Regions already. And Italy give five (including Sardinia and Sicily) a status not unlike Britain's devolved governments. Poland is also divided into Voivodeships. So you could say the scouring for breaking any EU members national governments in already there.

But really look no further then how the EU divides member countries for stat collection if you want to see how the EU might carve up it's member states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Actually Italy and France have first level sub-divisions similar to German Lander in terms of size and local flavour called Regions already. And Italy give five (including Sardinia and Sicily) a status not unlike Britain's devolved governments. Poland is also divided into Voivodeships.

---

Volvodeship.

For the EU to really reform there needs to be a shared model that the constituent parts want it to reform to - is it meant to be more democratic, more fair, more equal, more efficient, more powerful? As it stands, countries want vastly different things - France wants power but doesn't really have any (and of course massive subsidies), Germany wants to not be a threat but is still massively powerful, Eastern Europe want the freedom to travel and Grants, Greece wants others to work on their behalf and so on; Ireland wants to be part of the EU and trade freely with the UK; Gibraltar wants to be part of the UK and trade with the EU...

So, Junker might talk about reform and a better EU and to that everyone can agree. But defining what that means and implementing will not be as simple.

~:smoking: