Future of the European Union

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, how would you define government efficiency?

Where I come from, efficiency means same output with lower input or higher output with same input.
Translated to government that would mean same road quality with lower taxes or same taxes but better road quality.
The only ones who could possibly be against that are the contractors who build the road and would rather build bad roads for lots of government money to maximize their own profits/money-making-efficiency...

---

Where tou came from destroyed everting twice, won't hold WW1 and WW2 against you bur wtrh the schaffende Muti I really can, once again Germany screw everything, say hi to the raped girls for me, I would have protected them it is my job after all, shady as ir may be they would have been fine

@Husar

How do you contextualize those leftists' perspectives (in my post) on the EU within the reform/replacement process? There are a number of permutations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I hate the inefficiencies of government....but sometimes I fear the idea of a truly efficient government even more. I always thought Herbert was onto something with BuSab.

---

I'm don't think I've seen it explicitly confirmed in my readings as of now, but my impression is that luxury socialism requires built-in inefficiencies to prevent the accumulation of inequality in power, wealth, and influence.

So for example, if you have rotating hierarchies, one month the position of Transport Secretary could be filled by an administrative genius, the next a disinterested bozo whose staff must constantly run damage control, most months something in between. I'm just making it up though, haven't seen it entailed.

Hard to see how you ever install the system if you start with a deliberately inefficient government, so someone will still have to think about who is sacrificed in the process...
252693451

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Where tou came from destroyed everting twice, won't hold WW1 and WW2 against you bur wtrh the schaffende Muti I really can, once again Germany screw everything, say hi to the raped girls for me, I would have protected them it is my job after all, shady as ir may be they would have been fine

---

Drunk? That comment is way out of line, Frags, and personally insulting to Husar. Say what you will about Germany's past evil-doings, but casting that on Husar is just wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Drunk? That comment is way out of line, Frags, and personally insulting to Husar. Say what you will about Germany's past evil-doings, but casting that on Husar is just wrong.

---

Not directed at Husar. But Germany does as it pleases, the EU is nothing more then Germany, and France morally blackmailing them. A fourth reich with a bitch of a wife

edit, Something is moving in Italy. Don't know a lot about Italy and their politics but 'eurosceptic' parties have a majority

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

This "process" has led to the creation of an inefficient, zombie-like UK industry in the 1960s / 70s and the consequent hollowing out in the 1980s and 1990s. No decisions made on pension reform for decades - tackling final salaries for baby boomers was a problem that could be foreseen for the last 40 years or so. New Labour's massive PFI off the books debt; devolution but no review of the Barnett formula and so on and so on.

The UK might lurch along in spite of the many inefficiencies of the political system we have but again we either seem to have no long term strategy - either more of the same or diametrically opposite - caused by our dreadful first past the post system at all levels in England and with local representatives also being the national representative. It is almost designed to ensure politicians have long, stable careers more than react to what locals want... except with a massive shift when "the other lot" get complete power and begin working.

I agree that other parts of the system help in improving how this functions.

~:smoking:

---

i'm not at at sure what you say is true, unless your point is confined to a specific part of the system, and not the wider process i allude to.

we have - perhaps by accident - built constructive dissent into the system in a way that i think is missing in many consensusal political systems:

https://qz.com/1269977/a-berkeley-pr...troublemakers/

The fate of Europe will be chosen by walking persistently finished the course of basic interests. Agreement building requires unique consideration instead of over-ardently defined, disruptive objectives. To my psyche, essential issues are of normal money, free stream of individuals with delicate fringes, the topic of displaced people, outside rivalry and radial developments in part states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Well off the mark. I meant it as derived from the Deleuzian/accelerationist sense, but we don't care about those labels so in the concrete sense of political controls being diffused into the hands of trans-national elites, for instance by virtue of their market clout and the overriding imperatives of their economic framework. C.f. what googling the term gets: "the severance of social, political, or cultural practices from their native places and populations."

---

Ah, I understand what you are talking about now. Thank you. No, I certainly wouldn't aim for that as an explicit goal in public policy making. But I also don't see that it entirely avoidable in a society that embraces globalisation as an opportunity. Nor too I recognise that it will by default be worse under one situation or another: in or out of the EU. The EU is an explicitly political project, and you could make a perfectly good argument that in being sucked into a world where:
1. Politics system is arranged on a more consensual basis
2. Public policy making is framed by a greater respect for the precautionary principle
3. Law-making reflects less a common law growth, preferring instead statute
4. Constitutional arrangements are framed more cautiously with safeguards and limits on parliamentary sovereignty
5. Social policy is assumed to be more collective, with a privelege of equality over liberty
6. Foriegn policy that sees its role only in the softer side of dispute resolution
That we have been deterritorialising the governance of britain from its roots for the last forty years, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

This is exactly what I've been trying to refer to you over time, that leaving the EU ub favor of liberalization to all comers clearly - or if you don't agree with "clearly", then suggestively enough that you can't ignore the possibility - eliminates more popular control, or at least popularly-responsive control, than EU membership ever could in the medium-term.

---

I accept the possibility, as stated above. I do not consider it to be likely, or inevitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

As I said, Corbyn appears to believe otherwise, that Brexit is an opportunity to show that the capitalist system can be defied. Summary in a followup post. Pre-emptively I'll state that I think the UK is too small and weak to accomplish this, that the concert of explicit and implicit controls of the world economy, institutions, and state actors results in the rapid and premature electoral expulsion of a radical Labour government. Alternatively, Labour would have to install a socialist-in-name dictatorship and emulate the quasi-self sufficiency of Cuba, an outcome that can hardly be called inspiring (inspiration matters in setting an example to other countries' socialist movements) and one that cannot shield the UK in the long-term context of persistent international capitalism (every factor in the world, from political to technological to ecological, inciting the implosion of the country).

In a world of islands the UK would not be allowed to pretend to be an island, in other words. Maybe EU membership overall provides some sort of buffer, when you need every edge you can get.

---

I read you post with interest, and I broadly agree with you reading. It is not something I would support - or consider desirable - but it seems a reasonable view of what 'they' might want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

What makes a Singapore from the spending-GDP ratio? It sounds like you're saying not a particular policy, but simply keeping overall spending below 40% of GDP will automatically reproduce some aspect of the Singapore model.
What are you referring to?

---

Yes, but not just spending ratios. I'd add regulatory 'ratio's if that were a thing. And when I refer to regulation I do not necessarily mean less, rather I mean regulation with less socialised aims. I use the examples of popular public distrust and regulatory banishment of GMO and fracking on the continent, and assume this derives from the more collective social culture which is happy to adopt a precautionary principle in public policy making 'for the public good'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Anyway, what exact features you envision for a Singapore model, whether these are desirable for most people, and if they are compatible with other narrow aspects of your preferred state (e.g. military interventionism) are a separate topic and beside the point. I'm more interested in why you assent to one kind of politics and not another, and what contradictions are present.

---

We all assent to one kind of politics or not. We have preferences. We vote the way we vote for inumerable different motivations. I do not talk about the mechanisms of gov't, i.e. how the executive or the civil service should function, but raw politics itself. And the EU is an explicitly political beast itself, and has moved far beyond being merely the implementing arm of the will of the council. And on those terms I am able to reject it on exactly the same terms that I would choose to reject a green/labour/tory manifesto in a general election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

It strikes me as a kind of misuse of the term to, as I suppose you are doing, limit it to the continuous efforts of a central government. Why should private groups and discrete political events be excluded if they arrive at the same type of result? Which is not to say that there is a linear correlation between the aims of the engineers and the actual product, just the opposite. There are always unforeseen consequences. That's why I called it a gamble.

---

I think your objecting to what I expanded upon in my paragraph above, but I'm not totally sure of that. If so, please say so, and on that assumption; yes, it is a gamble. But I am very happy to have a political system that gives people the tools they need to succeed wildly or fail disasterously. I don't seek artifical restraint on the limits of power through fear. I am a negative liberty kinda individual (a classical liberal), not a positve liberty communitarian (social democrat).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I said I believe something like your Singapore - more broadly speaking, liberalized dissolution - is the default scenario for the UK, applicable in or out of the EU but with more rapid development outside. Some would call that "pessimism".

---

I agree, but I would call it optimism, because I hold the six points above to be undesirable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demetrius

The fate of Europe will be chosen by walking persistently finished the course of basic interests. Agreement building requires unique consideration instead of over-ardently defined, disruptive objectives. To my psyche, essential issues are of normal money, free stream of individuals with delicate fringes, the topic of displaced people, outside rivalry and radial developments in part states.

---

i'm not sure i understood much of that, my fault no doubt.
may I ask you to expand on that please? :)

On the topic that we've been discussing, two rather insightful articles - one about the future, and one about the past. The past one is quite spectacular in fact.

Weimar Lessons - https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...featured&a_ps=

FA - https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...an-save-europe

Scottish parliament voted against Brexit. And?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...allenge-to-may

I am curious.
How will the EU juggle their treaty commitments to Iran and the (possible) re-imposition of sanctions by the US?

https://www.politico.eu/article/dona...ump-over-iran/

If the US does not exhibit some flexibility, this could get very ugly very quickly.
I don't see this situation allowing anyone to look good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

I am curious.
How will the EU juggle their treaty commitments to Iran and the (possible) re-imposition of sanctions by the US?

https://www.politico.eu/article/dona...ump-over-iran/

If the US does not exhibit some flexibility, this could get very ugly very quickly.
I don't see this situation allowing anyone to look good

---

Indeed. Many countries in the EU are less and less happy with following the USA's lead when they have all been ignored and many countries have a lot to loose.

I really, really hope some calmer minds come up with some fudge that finds a way of allowing the Toddler in Chief to look Strong and have some more lines to shout at his rally whilst allowing Iran to have a reason to continue to follow an arrangement that the EU / China / Russia agreed to.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I really, really hope some calmer minds come up with some fudge that finds a way of allowing the Toddler in Chief to look Strong

---

Absolutely not. Giving him any wins only increases the chances of having him for an additional 4 years.

Either a further destabilised Middle East or Trump with a vague "win". I'd opt for the latter. This as a Trump win is both marginal in general and marginal to what his "base" (and rarely was there a better term).

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Not directed at Husar. But Germany does as it pleases, the EU is nothing more then Germany,

---

It would be great if that would be true. Sadly soon with the UK gone the votes of the southern states who prefer a soft currency instead of a hard €, and who wish for Eurobonds that make their debts cost less interest for the cost of using Germanys credibility and raising the interest Germany would have to pay will outnumber the realists in the union.

Quote:

---

and France morally blackmailing them. A fourth reich with a bitch of a wife

---

If anything it would be the 5th Reich. I mean even the french are at their 5th republic and we can’t have less than that, can we?
And moral blackmailing is a sport of all whiners in the world nowadays and not the sole domain of France.

Quote:

---

edit, Something is moving in Italy. Don't know a lot about Italy and their politics but 'eurosceptic' parties have a majority

---

Eurosceptic and eurosceptic can be a lot of different viewpoints.
I for example love the EU for being able to travel freely to say the Netherlands or Italy without having the need of a visa or the need to exchange D-Mark into Lira, Gulden/HFL and Schilling. I do remember how that was when my grandparents and I were on holidays in South Tyrol and you needed to juggle 3 currencies. Not that everyone would not accept the other currencies, but at inflated exchange rates that made paying even more expensive than the usual bank fees for changing money. And not having to march into any of our neighbours in a tank for the last 73 years or being invaded by someone is something really unique for most countries in european history.

But on the other hand the EU has no democratic government, a parliament that has no say in the most important matters and a bureacrazy that is even worse than any national one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ConjurerDragon

It would be great if that would be true. Sadly soon with the UK gone the votes of the southern states who prefer a soft currency instead of a hard €, and who wish for Eurobonds that make their debts cost less interest for the cost of using Germanys credibility and raising the interest Germany would have to pay will outnumber the realists in the union.

---

I'm not sure I would call the current German government "realists"... :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I'm not sure I would call the current German government "realists"... :laugh4:

---

Regarding stability of the currency.

Well this is getting real very quickly.
The US leads with 12 demands it can safely assume Iran will reject.
The last deal took what, 10-ish years to put together? It's quite clear the US is not negotiating.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/...173257818.html

So if Iran won't deal, and neither will the US...war? unlikely even Trump is that crazy; full sanctions, which the EU will comply with even if they don't explicitly support them.
If Putin didn't arrange this mess then he must be the luckiest world leader alive :rolleyes:

Then getting back on a plane and telling North Korea that they should do a deal and they USA will totally promise to keep it, like, forever.

I would hope the E.U. et al find ways to circumvent the sanctions if Iran abide by the agreement. The rest of the world can be allies or powers with aligning interests... not vassals.

~:smoking:

The EU who ruins countries economically and Iran who's regime hangs people just because of what they are seem to really like eachother and America a bit less

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Then getting back on a plane and telling North Korea that they should do a deal and they USA will totally promise to keep it, like, forever.

---

Like with Budapest memorandum and Lybia?

Exactly - there is no incentive whatsoever for North Korea to comply unless the two options are to definitely die in an invasion now and probably die in one in the next decade. The former of course accepts the deaths of a million or more South Koreans from biologic, chemical and conventional attacks, perhaps double that North Koreans in and after the war, best case scenario a massively pissed off China - worst case a direct war - and a handful of nukes fired that would, worst case, kill millions more (best case miss / are destroyed on the ground or in air).

Assuming that even Donald's bunch view this as a Bad Option - perhaps the rest of the world loudly saying it is and most countries refusing to provide any help for the logistical build up - there might be some option regarding non-proliferation for aid but apart from that little else.

~:smoking:

And the Paris climate agreement? And NATO? And TPP? And NAFTA? And that China/Taiwan thing where they would not call the PM/President of Taiwan? And the one where they wouldn't acknowledge Jerusalem to keep the peace? And the one where Trump would not play as much golf as Obama...wait, that was internal, but anyway... Trump is really the one to show the world how likely the USA are to keep all their agreements. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

And the Paris climate agreement? And NATO? And TPP? And NAFTA? And that China/Taiwan thing where they would not call the PM/President of Taiwan? And the one where they wouldn't acknowledge Jerusalem to keep the peace? And the one where Trump would not play as much golf as Obama...wait, that was internal, but anyway... Trump is really the one to show the world how likely the USA are to keep all their agreements. :laugh4:

---

NATO?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

NATO?

---

He threatened to just disregard it if the nations in trouble don't meet his standards in terms of military expenditure and potentially other things. So far he hasn't done anything, but he certainly didn't invoke trust by bringing up the possibility that he would ignore the invasion of a member state if he felt it wasn't "worthy" in his eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

He threatened to just disregard it if the nations in trouble don't meet his standards in terms of military expenditure and potentially other things. So far he hasn't done anything, but he certainly didn't invoke trust by bringing up the possibility that he would ignore the invasion of a member state if he felt it wasn't "worthy" in his eyes.

---

Well, to be honest nearly all US presidents have brought up the clause that all NATO members have to expend 2% of their budget for the military. That is neither new, nor something that Trump made up. It even makes sense because if we look at the mess that the Bundeswehr is then even the old Spiegel magazine with it’s "bedingt abwehrbereit" articles from decades ago had no idea how low the standards and equipment of the german army could sink.

And "pacta sunt servanda" works both ways - by breaking the contract through not expending the promised amount of funds on military most european states have sacrificed their own ability to defend themselves AND their ability to come to the aid of their neighbours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ConjurerDragon

Well, to be honest nearly all US presidents have brought up the clause that all NATO members have to expend 2% of their budget for the military. That is neither new, nor something that Trump made up. It even makes sense because if we look at the mess that the Bundeswehr is then even the old Spiegel magazine with it’s "bedingt abwehrbereit" articles from decades ago had no idea how low the standards and equipment of the german army could sink.

And "pacta sunt servanda" works both ways - by breaking the contract through not expending the promised amount of funds on military most european states have sacrificed their own ability to defend themselves AND their ability to come to the aid of their neighbours.

---

Way to miss my point. How many of the others threatened to leave countries alone if they didn't pay up?
Trump and you also appear to miss the part where the budget is far from the biggest problem of the Bundeswehr.

https://www.wiwo.de/politik/deutschl.../21204968.html

Germany's plans to increase the military expenditures also date back to Obama, here an article from shortly before the 2016 election:

http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-germany-...get/a-36054268

To reduce the problem to some one-dimensional "spend more money" is really silly when the army doesn't even use its entire budget because the industry just can't deliver and when the requirements for the gear are completely broken regarding its missions. Take the transport helicopters that can only land on very flat ground due to the low ground clearance or the Tiger that doesn't have a swivel gun and can barely hit the taliban with gun pods on the wings because we ordered a tank buster and wanted to save money on the gun.
Of course we could try to buy so many Tigers that they can fire so many gunpods that the bullet storm become inescapable, that would be one way to fix the issue...
And then maybe they can use the missiles to create a nice, flat glass parking lot for the transports to land on. :rolleyes:

And besides, nobody forces the US to spend 4% of its GDP on defense, that is entirely their own choice to maintain force projection capabilities. If they can't defend us on a lower budget, maybe that would incentivize us to arm up by ourselves, but they want us to arm up to support their foreign adventures with more of our bullet sponges to make the adventures more palatable in the US.

We might just as well agree to a lower goal for all nations anyway.

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs...elevant-target

According to that the British meet the 2% goal and I still heard lots of complaints about how they're ruining their navy.

And what exactly do we all need these large armies for anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

He threatened to just disregard it if the nations in trouble don't meet his standards in terms of military expenditure and potentially other things. So far he hasn't done anything, but he certainly didn't invoke trust by bringing up the possibility that he would ignore the invasion of a member state if he felt it wasn't "worthy" in his eyes.

---

Well I can ubderstand the sentiment that we are freeriiding. We can cut it feom develiopment-bddget as it us vasucakt the sane thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well I can ubderstand the sentiment that we are freeriiding. We can cut it feom develiopment-bddget as it us vasucakt the sane thing

---

Freeriding what? Whom did the US actually defend us from since NATO was established?
And who asked the US to spend 4% of GDP? Why don't they just spend 2% and why did Trump increase the military budget if he thinks he's spending too much money on it? And why was the 2% goal only loosely set in the 90s?

On that note, why does the US demand us to see THAT goal as binding, but would never sign a climate contract with binding goals?
How about we accept that binding goal if the US accepts a binding goal that we like, such as a certain CO2 reduction (that we would also agree to of course)?

I mean, if we just accept some US wish and get none of our wishes granted, surely that would be a bad deal for us...Germany First!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

According to that the British meet the 2% goal and I still heard lots of complaints about how they're ruining their navy.

And what exactly do we all need these large armies for anyway?

---

People like myself that complain do so because we anglophiles tend to see the hollowing out of the Royal Navy as a sad reflection of the UKs diminishing role in the world. For the purely NATO standpoint, the UK and France have long been the only NATO allies with navies capable of any force projection or long term sustainment at sea, having the UK give up that capability or let it erode means that for any NATO naval operation (like off the Somali coast) will take more US logistical support.

Though it sounds stupid, you need armies to keep a peace or to back up your positions. They don't need to be large, but they should at least be functional. The swiss haven't had to use their army in a long time but it's existence and it's being formidable enough kept it out of WWI and WWII. The Germans copying the the US model of logistics (based off the Walmart model) was supposed to save money which it does at the cost of equipment readiness. Not being allowed to stockpile parts means that maintenance shops have to wait for the ordering system to work back to depots and forward again meaning more downtime for even simple repairs.

In the longer term viewpoint, if Russia ever succeeds in the dissolution of NATO and the watering down of any collective EU defense then it's quite likely that they'd use outright force again to enforce political/economic disputes with their neighbors. As any student of history knows, building up an army does not happen quickly and any credible European military response to Russian aggression can't wait for the threat to become so real that public support demands it.
If the above seems unrealistic just think back how different to world was 30 years ago or 20 years ago. Things have gotten more peaceful for Europe but that is not irreversible. Remember, the strong tend to despise 'weakness' not respect it. Thankfully France has 'the bomb' so there is some independent deterrent (assuming the US abandons Europe again) within the EU following the departure of the UK.