Re: Your definition of the EU
Quote:
This makes absolutely no sense. Why have a governmental agency that does not have a system of efficient checks and balances established?. Without a satisfying degree of transparency the institution becomes rife (SP) with abuse, corruption, and waste.
It's easy to see what I mean, because I 've obviously used a systemical approach here. It's the nature of international law that doesn't allow this cognitive reasoning outlined in the quoted passage and easier to implement at the national level.
Having said this, the EU has made significant steps forward in this respect, with some accountancy enforced by its courts.
But to project the norms of the national political scene at the international one, namely international institutions, such a task needs time, and without ideas like the EU, it'll never be achieved.
Sequencing can only be done if you already have an organisation in place, because any charters and theoretical framework can't be translated automatically in its practices. Experience and political will patch the legal part and public involvement provides legitimisation and ensures fair governance. Ofcourse the EU has a hypertrophied economic section that has started nourishing the political one only recently. Should the aforementioned political will promote the notion of a political union, then we could see greater pressure from the population for the resolution of the problem called "democratic deficit".
And this brings us to the second part of my previous post. Since vested interests (the concept of "national interest" being a hazy one here) still govern much of the countries' attitudes towards a possible political integration, the EU is unable to act. Member states also prioritize their own internal problems. As I had said before, the EU is mostly the sum of its individual members and by adding new members you also inherit their problems and their structural deficiencies.
The "deepening - enlargement" debates still rage on. The first ones say that admiting so many new states hampers the EU's ability to face the outlined problems while the others claim that it was important to embrace a part of Europe that was long excluded from its rightful place among the western nations, helping them restructure their economies in the process.
Naturally there's much more to this, but I generally think that all these general issues are interconnected, creating a "chicken or the egg" situation.
Re: Your definition of the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Impresario
It's easy to see what I mean, because I 've obviously used a systemical approach here. It's the nature of international law that doesn't allow this cognitive reasoning outlined in the quoted passage and easier to implement at the national level.
Then you need to explain what you mean by systemical. Establishing a larger governmental or international agency without checks and balances established prior to the growth of the system is not a systemical approach.
A systemical approach would entile that the agency develops a comprehensive plan on how it will execute its growth, with established check points. A system to inplace to insure that the execution goes according to the plan as much as possible. A systemical approach also plans for the fact that no plan survives contact with reality - and has a system in place to insure adjustments can be made.
Quote:
Having said this, the EU has made significant steps forward in this respect, with some accountancy enforced by its courts.
Care to explain the study alreadly posted that directly contradicts this sentence?
Quote:
But to project the norms of the national political scene at the international one, namely international institutions, such a task needs time, and without ideas like the EU, it'll never be achieved.
Agreed - but that is a different concept then growth of an agency without ensuring a system of checks and balances is established or that transparcy is apparent in that agency.
Quote:
Sequencing can only be done if you already have an organisation in place, because any charters and theoretical framework can't be translated automatically in its practices. Experience and political will patch the legal part and public involvement provides legitimisation and ensures fair governance. Ofcourse the EU has a hypertrophied economic section that has started nourishing the political one only recently. Should the aforementioned political will promote the notion of a political union, then we could see greater pressure from the population for the resolution of the problem called "democratic deficit".
Sequencing seems to be a different then what you first expoused in your previous post. Rapid growth without a plan means an increase in fraud, waste and abuse. Before growth can be done a plan should be on hand. Without a sound plan - the implementation of checks and balances, transparency, and sound governmental practices is impractical. To propably sequence growth - one must have a plan of action. A plan of action that does not include checks and balances to insure proper utilization of resources is doomed to failure (at worst) or inefficiency (at best).
Quote:
And this brings us to the second part of my previous post. Since vested interests (the concept of "national interest" being a hazy one here) still govern much of the countries' attitudes towards a possible political integration, the EU is unable to act. Member states also prioritize their own internal problems. As I had said before, the EU is mostly the sum of its individual members and by adding new members you also inherit their problems and their structural deficiencies.
I understand this thought of reasoning - but it does not explain the espousing of rapid growth prior to the implemenation of checks and balances on the governing body.
Quote:
The "deepening - enlargement" debates still rage on. The first ones say that admiting so many new states hampers the EU's ability to face the outlined problems while the others claim that it was important to embrace a part of Europe that was long excluded from its rightful place among the western nations, helping them restructure their economies in the process.
Naturally there's much more to this, but I generally think that all these general issues are interconnected, creating a "chicken or the egg" situation.
What you seem to be advocating will cause more problems then it fixes.
Runaway governmental agency growth causes more problems then it fixes. It becomes an ever increasing devourer of resources - with little to no output in relationship to the consumption of that it takes in. Eventually such a system becomes so bloated that it explodes creating more havoc then what was initially present.
Re: Your definition of the EU
I was gonna write a bit more, but just saying that I don't trust the whole thing is enough.
Re: Your definition of the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zalmoxis
I was gonna write a bit more, but just saying that I don't trust the whole thing is enough.
One should never fully trust any governing body.
Re: Your definition of the EU
Quote:
Then you need to explain what you mean by systemical. Establishing a larger governmental or international agency without checks and balances established prior to the growth of the system is not a systemical approach.
Lots of missunderstanding here. I mentioned a "systemical approach" in regards to "how" I'd be analyzing the subject, not as the method used in the EU project. My second sentence explains that the international legal framework and system doesn't allow (and for a long time I suppose) the proper implementation of checks and balances, because international institutions fundamentally work through each country's executive body, with parliaments having a secondary role, usually called for the ratification of treaties, a typical process.
So you can't actually accuse the people behind EU for this, don't forget that it's composed by communities founded and developed by democratic nations. It’s a process that’s still evolving and, ofcourse, plans are being made, but political visions differ and, to repeat myself once more, the public isn’t participating for a variety of reasons.
And to connect it with this:
Quote:
A systemical approach would entile that the agency develops a comprehensive plan on how it will execute its growth, with established check points. A system to inplace to insure that the execution goes according to the plan as much as possible. A systemical approach also plans for the fact that no plan survives contact with reality - and has a system in place to insure adjustments can be made.
and to answer to this:
Quote:
Care to explain the study alreadly posted that directly contradicts this sentence?
and also include this:
Quote:
Sequencing seems to be a different then what you first expoused in your previous post. Rapid growth without a plan means an increase in fraud, waste and abuse. Before growth can be done a plan should be on hand. Without a sound plan - the implementation of checks and balances, transparency, and sound governmental practices is impractical. To propably sequence growth - one must have a plan of action. A plan of action that does not include checks and balances to insure proper utilization of resources is doomed to failure (at worst) or inefficiency (at best).
,
I'll point out that no international body has ever gone so far (the US is a totally different animal) as the EU. And while the differences with the national way of things are striking for many, the same struggles that ensued over the course of hundreds of years at the state level between the executive, legislative and judicial powers, are taking place within the EU, albeit at a different pace and with the head start the executive power has.
This is explainable by the first part of my post, elected governments do wield the greatest powers and decide how the whole system will work. The part of the EU that has been consistently blamed though, is the Commission, because its members are appointed and it often clashes with the national governments. And to do that it needed extra authorities, and along with the courts, they are the only ones who can pass judgement on all member-states (almost exclusively in their economic obligations due to EU being a virtually inexistant political entity, with no single voice), something unseen in other international bodies. And the Commission was also forced to resign following the report of the European Court of Auditors and the close failure of the censure motion by the European Parliament in 1999.
Therefore we aren’t dealing here with a “massive blob of corruption”, but with a series of more complex situations that need closer examination. Certainly the negative aspects are making better headlines in the news, but with corruption, resource waste and all, it’s also a fact that there has been progress at many levels, esp. in countries with weak infrastructure; in a lot of cases the cost was higher than it should have initially been, but there is a great number of completed works and without the EU support I can imagine that some of them would have been half-finished for a long time.
Re: Your definition of the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Impresario
Lots of missunderstanding here. I mentioned a "systemical approach" in regards to "how" I'd be analyzing the subject, not as the method used in the EU project. My second sentence explains that the international legal framework and system doesn't allow (and for a long time I suppose) the proper implementation of checks and balances, because international institutions fundamentally work through each country's executive body, with parliaments having a secondary role, usually called for the ratification of treaties, a typical process.
That makes it more clear. And shows the fundmental weakness of the EU as alreadly mentioned.
Quote:
So you can't actually accuse the people behind EU for this, don't forget that it's composed by communities founded and developed by democratic nations. It’s a process that’s still evolving and, ofcourse, plans are being made, but political visions differ and, to repeat myself once more, the public isn’t participating for a variety of reasons.
Oh yes the accusation can be leveled against the governing body and those advocating implementation of greater responsiblity of the EU governing body. Its a valid point. Growth without proper planning leads to problems especially in any type of governing body.
Quote:
I'll point out that no international body has ever gone so far (the US is a totally different animal) as the EU. And while the differences with the national way of things are striking for many, the same struggles that ensued over the course of hundreds of years at the state level between the executive, legislative and judicial powers, are taking place within the EU, albeit at a different pace and with the head start the executive power has.
This is explainable by the first part of my post, elected governments do wield the greatest powers and decide how the whole system will work. The part of the EU that has been consistently blamed though, is the Commission, because its members are appointed and it often clashes with the national governments. And to do that it needed extra authorities, and along with the courts, they are the only ones who can pass judgement on all member-states (almost exclusively in their economic obligations due to EU being a virtually inexistant political entity, with no single voice), something unseen in other international bodies. And the Commission was also forced to resign following the report of the European Court of Auditors and the close failure of the censure motion by the European Parliament in 1999.
Therefore we aren’t dealing here with a “massive blob of corruption”, but with a series of more complex situations that need closer examination. Certainly the negative aspects are making better headlines in the news, but with corruption, resource waste and all, it’s also a fact that there has been progress at many levels, esp. in countries with weak infrastructure; in a lot of cases the cost was higher than it should have initially been, but there is a great number of completed works and without the EU support I can imagine that some of them would have been half-finished for a long time.
So are you still advocating rapid growth of the EU governing body, in light of the fact that the commission and the body itself is rife with corruption, and does not have the necessary safeguards - ie a check and balance system that allows for transparcy of the governing bodies actions.
Regardless of you answer the benefits of the Trade Union aspects of the EU have far outweighed the costs of the corruption, but as the EU attempts to go beyond this area - the graft and corruption will become worse if a system is not established and maintained that provides the needed transparcy on then governing body. Advocation a rapid growth without considering will lead to failure of the overall system
Re: Your definition of the EU
Dresser Industries... Brown & Root with Kellogg
Re: Your definition of the EU
Something that people just love to bash, whether it actually deserves it or not is irrelevant.
Re: Your definition of the EU
Nominally democratic kleptocracy, with a base of money sinks, a crust of corruption and a topping of unaccountability.
Strange thing is I quite like the idea of a federal Europe, but the EU as it stands is a sad mess.
Re: Your definition of the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Dresser Industries... Brown & Root with Kellogg
Correct -they are all Texas Companies initially that were taken under the Halliburton umberalla.
Re: Your definition of the EU
For the UK:
A cost of £11 billion a year + loss of earnings from farming, fishing, etc. and the end of any meaningful democracy.
Re: Your definition of the EU
The European Ulcer ... The European Unappealable ... The European Unapt ... The European Unartful ... The European Unashamedly
Take your pick...
Re: Your definition of the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placid Tramp
For the UK:
A cost of £11 billion a year + loss of earnings from farming, fishing, etc. and the end of any meaningful democracy.
How has the EU hurt the UK farms? I know how they've hurt the fishing industry. I'm of the opinion they needed the regulations becuase they were going to fish the sea's till they were dry. Though it would have been far more efficient to have the industry self regulate, its always better that way. So how did the EU screw up farming, I always thought farming couldn't really be regulated to death, just plant a seed let it grow and sell the fruit.
Re: Your definition of the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
How has the EU hurt the UK farms?
quotas and red tape ( I think)
Re: Your definition of the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
How has the EU hurt the UK farms? I know how they've hurt the fishing industry. I'm of the opinion they needed the regulations becuase they were going to fish the sea's till they were dry. Though it would have been far more efficient to have the industry self regulate, its always better that way. So how did the EU screw up farming, I always thought farming couldn't really be regulated to death, just plant a seed let it grow and sell the fruit.
Maybe it has little something to do with that Southern countries in EU can produce food lot cheaper then the Northern so it will have an impact to the farming industry of the Northern countries.For example it have already killed most of it over here.And the most peculiar thing is that while it has done that to our farming industry the actual prize of food hasnt went down at all.:juggle2:
Re: Your definition of the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Maybe it has little something to do with that Southern countries in EU can produce food lot cheaper then the Northern so it will have an impact to the farming industry of the Northern countries.For example it have already killed most of it over here.And the most peculiar thing is that while it has done that to our farming industry the actual prize of food hasnt went down at all.:juggle2:
http://www.my-smileys.de/generator/s...c90b61da2a.png
Re: Your definition of the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I know too...Now that we are in EU.We have to support the French farmers.By putting ours out of their business.Oh those poor French farmers...~:mecry:
Re: Your definition of the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The EU:
Unwanted by the majority of the people involved.
Papers over any cracks that arise
As has so little purpose presses forward lest its existence is questioned
Has no constitution that can be agreed upon
Has rules that few of the countries abide by - and why bother as no attempt is made to enforce them
Has a moving capital *(added by quoting poster)
Has a growing number of recognised languages
Has yet to have a year where the budget can be audited.
There is nothing that the EU achieves that can not be done better with a free trade area and treaties. In fact, that would do a better job, as then they'd be less problems as things get bigger....
One voice? Please! A cacophany of voices that rarely seem to agree. Or one voice that is undermined by the states themselves. Import tarrifs on shoes? Half say yes, half say no. A fitting example of how unified we truely are.
~:smoking:
Aside from the asterisked point above, could I not also replace the letters EU with UN and make an equivalent claim? Yet many wonder why the USA is so "luke-warm" towards that older international body.....
Re : Re: Your definition of the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
We have to support the French farmers.By putting ours out of their business.
That's called progress. Imagine all them poor Fins, tilling their land at minus 40 degrees. :no:
Now, you all can devote your full attention to manufacturing Nokia's, which we then buy with the money you've send us. :idea2:
Re: Re : Re: Your definition of the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
That's called progress. Imagine all them poor Fins, tilling their land at minus 40 degrees. :no:
Now, you all can devote your full attention to manufacturing Nokia's, which we then buy with the money you've send us. :idea2:
Lol!Well Sayed Louis!:thumbsup: Maybe we should just trade the Nokias for food.I like French Cuisine.:chef: Then we could spare ourselves from all this money transferring.~;)
Re : Re: Re : Re: Your definition of the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Maybe we should just trade the Nokias for food.I like French Cuisine.:chef:
And I love anything Finnish!!:jumping:
Hah! We've once again discovered just what the benefits of the EU where again. You sell your telephones to Germany, they sell their cars to France and France sells Finland food. That way, the Fin, German and Frenchmen all end up with a Nokia, a Mercedes and the finest champagne.
Of course, free trade can be achieved through less cumbersome means than via this Brussels bureaucratic monstrosity. But a fully functioning internal market can not. Would Finland be able to spawn another global succes story like Nokia if it had to start it's operation within a domestic market of a mere five million? Corporations with a domestic market of 450 million are better suited for the fierce challenges of a globalised economy.
Re: Your definition of the EU
Ah, the French farmers… Perhaps some should go and check what the purpose is for the “subsidies” to the French Farmers. Guys, it will be a shock for you. It was done to stop them to overproduce, and to make the rich farmers richer, in all countries. A farmer, in order not only to survive but to live normally has to sell his production. So he has to produce a lot of what even product. But, more he produce, more the prices are going down. So he has to produce more to keep up, etc…
So, the E.U got the idea to organise a little bit in helping, first the development of new product, and trying to keep agriculture (and fisheries) alive and against their own short view interest (like over exploiting the fishing zones, for ex) for a long term advantage, like stopping the use of fertilizer which make the well polluted and now we need to filter the water coming from springs… That why we have quotas. Doesn’t always work, but that is the idea.
The Free Market, unrulled like in Brazil, is driving massive extinction of wild species, deforestation and little bit of ethno-genocide, acculturation and murder of the poor, local and natives. So, if you are a poor local native, yours chances are slim.
However, apparently, it is the way some of you prefer. The fact you are able to read and probably answer to this will be the proof you don’t belong to the above describe category.
Now, right, that stop the poor country (South of Europe, it is Africa) to export their food to us, cheaper. Well, if fact, that stopped the RICH owners/farmers for Africa to sell their products to as, that we can enjoy to have lemon, oranges, apples kiwis, all the year. That prevents the same rich owners to expel, by force if necessary (again, see Brazil) the poorest from the field where they cultivate their food and grow up their cattle, goats, sheep in order to survive, and to plant Cocoa, tea and coffee we so need after we finished the steak coming from Brazil (again). And because we want cheaper product, we organise the concurrence between Africa and South America, Asia: Who will sacrifice his poor for our coffee? Sorry guys, I see a more competitive product there (translation: they accept to make their population to starve for us), so I buy their coffee. What you have to do: Burn your product or low the price. By the way, if you burn it, that against the regulations against pollution you signed last year, so you have to burn it in OUR factories, here is the bill.
The EU was built fist to prevent a fourth war between Germany and France (Coal and Iron Agreement), secondly to create the conditions of a regulate market (not at all a free market) and a place where states will negotiate instead to fight.
Not useful the EU? How many wars occurred with EU?
“the EU as it stands is a sad mess” Quiet right, because every country looks only on their own interest. “I want my money back”. This selfish attitude just makes me crazy. Others can died, who care? Not me, if I can have my SUV.:wall:
Re : Your definition of the EU
Yes, good post Brenus. Good to see a plea for the EU from a left perspective. I also like the social aspect it has. Countries should not compete by lowering their social or environmental standards indeed. Although, personally, I would prefer the EU to adopt a bit more liberalism (in a European sense of the word, not American).
Also, I think the contradiction between a regulated or a free market within the EU is incorrect when speaking about a common internal market. EU regulations are exactly what created the free internal market between the 25 members. Without harmonisation, the free flow of goods, capital and people would be hampered. For once, more market regulation led to more market freedom.
