Future of the European Union

This is going to be complex, and quite debated. :book:

In essence, what we have right now in the European Union is a complicated junction with many roads, none of them clear - where do we go from here? The EU is not in an ideal shape, and political leaders realise this by trying to appeal to the EU-skeptics portraying the EU project as a unificator of Europe. These approaches have worked to some extent but it's clear the impact of Brexit will be hard and it will be a contentious issue for many many years.

So where do we go from here?

Economically, at this moment, we are on a relatively sound footing. But we have trade wars.

And what social wise? Cultural wise? Trade wise? Inter-exchange wise (Schengen)? Diplomacy?

Take your picks, where are we going?

Is this where is the EU going or where should the EU go? Even then is this based on ideals or on the reality of the world as-is?

Eastern Europe seems to want different things to Western Europe and there's also a split between the Northern states and the Southern states.

Continuing as things are help avoid showing all the fractures.

~:smoking:

I've always thought the EEC was a wise move, and that spreading it to the former Warsaw Pact would be wise. I have always been less sanguine about the EU.

Both where it should go... and where it will probably go.

And yes, you're correct, Eastern Europee wants different things but not necessarily all of EE. Romania is more open to more integration.

Can wait for it to die, and just go back to trade. I will get what I want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I will get what I want.

---

Your country being a tank refueling stop on the way to France?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Your country being a tank refueling stop on the way to France?

---

You lot avoided it in the first 'War to End All Wars,' and if the Netherlands had ceded that bit South of Roermond to Belgium before the war you'd have probably given them a pass in the second iteration 26 years later. Darned inconvenient bit of geography for the Dutch that panhandle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Your country being a tank refueling stop on the way to France?

---

Things itching again with you guys?

Not everyone would agree, but I think the EEC is a brilliant bit of policy.
To really make it work almost requires some form of political integration (imo); confederated states not a unitary state.
To allow for richer supporting poorer members there has to be some sense that WE are in this together, and it has to be based on something besides shear terror at the prospect of Russia finally getting it's act together (although that helps...)
But is such an arrangement destined to be forever a "hub dependency" structure?

United States of Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

To allow for richer supporting poorer members there has to be some sense that WE are in this together, and it has to be based on something besides shear terror at the prospect of Russia finally getting it's act together (although that helps...)

---

I think younger and more educated people are more likely to see it that way.

And I personally see Russia as a smaller "threat" than global corporations. A corporation that makes more money than a country's GDP will simply not be bound to the laws of that country and I don't see why people think their nation is somehow so great that it can resist. In the worst case a corporation will get a more powerful, bigger country to subdue the smaller one because it has the bigger one sufficiently deep in its pockets as well. See the Argentina thing or several countries being forced to let children smoke or the quote from the Australian media mogul about Downing street doing everything he wants while the EU ignores him.

I simply don't get how people can think a world with small countries and enormous corporate (and personal) wealth in the hands of a few would somehow be good for them. Must like being puppets I guess, praying to be among the better-off puppets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I think younger and more educated people are more likely to see it that way.

And I personally see Russia as a smaller "threat" than global corporations. A corporation that makes more money than a country's GDP will simply not be bound to the laws of that country and I don't see why people think their nation is somehow so great that it can resist. In the worst case a corporation will get a more powerful, bigger country to subdue the smaller one because it has the bigger one sufficiently deep in its pockets as well. See the Argentina thing or several countries being forced to let children smoke or the quote from the Australian media mogul about Downing street doing everything he wants while the EU ignores him.

I simply don't get how people can think a world with small countries and enormous corporate (and personal) wealth in the hands of a few would somehow be good for them. Must like being puppets I guess, praying to be among the better-off puppets.

---

I agree.
In fact corporations have other advantages.
Transnational corp's are largely beyond the law in many real senses, further they have nothing but up-side to pushing the boundaries of "mere national" law.
"Oh but they get fined! and sued! and bad-mouthed"
Minor cost of doing business, and only if you get caught. Simply looked at from the point of view of economic size, the fines are laughable.
Even with a "slam dunk" criminal case, charges are unlikely to be laid; their lawyers are better, and their budgets are bigger.
The scariest thing about the E.U. is that it makes a school of sardines into a whale; harder to capture or ignore...possibly dangerous.

What happens in the Brexit will affect an EU country's opinion on its own exit. From what I heard, the pound has weakened and the salaries have gone down. And the imports became more expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

What happens in the Brexit will affect an EU country's opinion on its own exit. From what I heard, the pound has weakened and the salaries have gone down. And the imports became more expensive.

---

A small price for being a sovereign state, it is not realistic that we follow suit with the current political party-kartel but one can hope

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

A small price for being a sovereign state, it is not realistic that we follow suit with the current political party-kartel but one can hope

---

Are you coming over to live here any time soon? Or are you going to continue to praise the virtues of Brexit from the safety of Dutchland, deep within the heartland of the EU?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Are you coming over to live here any time soon? Or are you going to continue to praise the virtues of Brexit from the safety of Dutchland, deep within the heartland of the EU?

---

No bought an apartmentment here, but consider yourself lucky, the EUSSR now demands 300.000.000.000 extra, for an overhead that is totally useless, with a drunk and a failed Dutch politician who nobody ever elected running the show and telling other countries what to do, even what to think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No bought an apartmentment here, but consider yourself lucky, the EUSSR now demands 300.000.000.000 extra, for an overhead that is totally useless, with a drunk and a failed Dutch politician who nobody ever elected running the show and telling other countries what to do, even what to think

---

As opposed to this forum only having a normal dutch guy telling us what to do and think about the EU? :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

As opposed to this forum only having a normal dutch guy telling us what to do and think about the EU? :clown:

---

Do you think I am the only one that thinks about the EU like I do, that is why the eurocrats want censorship of free thought. And an army. It is so ugly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Do you think I am the only one that thinks about the EU like I do, that is why the eurocrats want censorship of free thought. And an army. It is so ugly.

---

No, but three people on a continent of 500 million still don't make a majority and the rest of that sentence is just a conspiracy theory based on nothing but opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

No, but three people on a continent of 500 million still don't make a majority and the rest of that sentence is just a conspiracy theory based on nothing but opinion.

---

Feel free to think so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Do you think I am the only one that thinks about the EU like I do, that is why the eurocrats want censorship of free thought. And an army. It is so ugly.

---

Over here, as you'd know if you actually lived here rather than pontificating about it from overseas, it's the Brexiteers who are censoring free thought and opposition, accusing dissenters of treason. MPs, judges, and now the Lords who've upheld parliamentary sovereignty over cabinet rule have been named and shamed as enemies of the people. Do you agree with this?

What EU will we get?
My thoughts from a few years back - not significantly changed with the arrival of brexit/macron/etc.

Does Brexit maximise regional harmony (read: the EU)?

That depends on [why] we choose to exit, and [whether] the EU finds a happy outcome for the lack of political legitimacy that hamstrings the economic integration necessary for monetary union to survive. Crucially, it also depends on whether choosing to exit helps or hinders the EU in finding that happy outcome.

There are two visions for Britain outside the EU:

1. One is the Tory driven Vote Leave. It will be business oriented (low regulation), and follow three centuries of Tory foreign policy (outward looking). This is the ‘Singapore on steroids’ version, a high-growth / low-protection model that reverts from social-democracy to market-economy.

2. The second is the UKIP driven Leave.eu. It will be worker oriented (high regulation), and be captured by the reactionary left (inward looking). This is the ‘Belgium on steroids’, a social democracy unencumbered by the market orientation of the EU Commission, and with little use for elective warfare.

There are two visions for Britain inside the EU:

1. One is a German driven Europe of rules. It will be business oriented, and Greece will come to be the template of a ‘wide’ Europe with no sense of common solidarity. This fractious stasis will nevertheless require us to integrate to fight for oxygen in a low adaptability / low growth bloc. Member nations might eventually come to engineer out some of the imperfections of Maastricht and Lisbon, but it will be an antagonistic and inward looking bloc.

2. The second is the French/Italian European people. It will result from peripheral Eurozone members choosing to leave monetary union, and accession states simply refusing to join. In doing this, the six founding members will recognise the common solidarity necessary to legitimise a transfer union at the core of Europe. A core able to integrate, a periphery happy to cooperate, this EU would be able to focus on more than zero-sum maneuvering.

A large number of interacting components whose aggregate activity is nonlinear and typically exhibits hierarchical self-organization under selective pressures. Hey, you just described a complex system, I demand you now give me easy answers!

I’ll try:

On the outside, we do at least have a simpler calculation.

Vote Leave won the official designation of the Brexit campaign. With Labour in disarray, if Brexit wins the day then we are looking at Singapore on steroids. We only get the full benefit of this if Europe finds the wherewithal to move beyond the current fractious stasis…

On the inside, it’s a lot trickier.

Everyone understands that the twin aims of a wide Europe with a common currency are totally incompatible. You can have a pre-Maastricht intergovernmental Europe as wide as you care to expand it (no transfer union required), but the EU has gone too far for that now and yet we’re still inexplicably wedded to the idea of ever-closer-union (which demands common solidarity). It sometimes feels that without some creative destruction there is no way for Europe to move beyond paralysis.

From the point of view of Britain; is the EU more likely to achieve the French/Italian European people with us inside (as an advocate for the divergent needs of the periphery), or outside (where the shock of Brexit breaks the fractious stasis)? If we leave, and a German driven Europe of rules persists, will we exacerbate Germany’s unwanted and unhappy dominance (forcing non-euro nations to join, or leave entirely)? If we stay, will it be harder for France to accept that a European People does not need to include every EU nation (thus beginning the core/periphery realignment)?

This is the essential question that nations are wrestling with when they look at the Macron vision of EUrope.

What EU do I want?
I want an EU that does not force the little nations to knuckle under the 'consensus' thrashed out by the bigger boys.
Britain was big enough and ugly enough to carve out the opt-outs it needed, but that is not true of many of the smaller nations.
For this reason i would have been very happy with a remain vote if Belgium had not demanded that exemption to ever closer union must apply only to britain. A more callous and selfish act I have rarely seen!
Since this was the result, i'd be more than happy if we ended up back in EFTA, with the intention of creating a power block to push back against ever closer union.
To be clear, my aim is not to obstruct European nations from going where they want to go, but to prevent the EU from steamrolling nations that don't wish to go with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Over here, as you'd know if you actually lived here rather than pontificating about it from overseas, it's the Brexiteers who are censoring free thought and opposition, accusing dissenters of treason. MPs, judges, and now the Lords who've upheld parliamentary sovereignty over cabinet rule have been named and shamed as enemies of the people. Do you agree with this?

---

Well yes. You can never be too early to identify totaliritism. Maybe I will change my mind if I read more, but so far so good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well yes. You can never be too early to identify totaliritism. Maybe I will change my mind if I read more, but so far so good.

---

You agree with the painting of political opponents as traitors? Putting faces and names on the front page of a national newspaper and labelling them as "enemies of the people"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well yes. You can never be too early to identify totaliritism. Maybe I will change my mind if I read more, but so far so good.

---

You think the EU has totalitarian tendencies, but you kinda like Trump, think Putin is harmless?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You agree with the painting of political opponents as traitors? Putting faces and names on the front page of a national newspaper and labelling them as "enemies of the people"?

---

Newspapers are nothing more than lifestyle magazines printed on dead trees with some casual news included, and should be treated as such

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Newspapers are nothing more than lifestyle magazines printed on dead trees with some casual news included, and should be treated as such

---

Easily dismissed by someone living in Dutchland, who doesn't have to face the consequences of that of which he spouts. Just like the 90s neolibs whom I despised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

What happens in the Brexit will affect an EU country's opinion on its own exit. From what I heard, the pound has weakened and the salaries have gone down. And the imports became more expensive.

---

The EU has a tightrope to cross: to accomidating a departure would undermine the EU's necessity, too punishing and they would risk reminding the east of the warsaw pact.

Of course with our current lack of leadership its probable any punishment might be indistinguishable from May's self destructive flailing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

The EU has a tightrope to cross: to accomidating a departure would undermine the EU's necessity, too punishing and they would risk reminding the east of the warsaw pact.

Of course with our current lack of leadership its probable any punishment might be indistinguishable from May's self destructive flailing.

---

Polls across the EU indicate Clemenceau more than the Warsaw Pact. Nearly everyone wants to squeeze the UK until the pips squeak for this decision of ours. A moderate government might look at the margin and decide the mandate isn't there for radicalism. But the Leavers have interpreted the result to mean that the victor gets the spoils while the vanquished gets ground into the dirt. No matter how little the actions have in common with the promises of the Leave campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Polls across the EU indicate Clemenceau more than the Warsaw Pact. Nearly everyone wants to squeeze the UK until the pips squeak for this decision of ours. A moderate government might look at the margin and decide the mandate isn't there for radicalism. But the Leavers have interpreted the result to mean that the victor gets the spoils while the vanquished gets ground into the dirt. No matter how little the actions have in common with the promises of the Leave campaign.

---

Clemenceau is better than Lincoln. Lincoln saw to it that a secession attempt was punishable by force of arms.

I somehow doubt the desire to "squeeze the pips" of anyone who dares to leave is a one shared uniformly across the union, particularly not in the areas who still retain living memory of being in the previous intertantional group that was dangerous to leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I somehow doubt the desire to "squeeze the pips" of anyone who dares to leave is a one shared uniformly across the union, particularly not in the areas who still retain living memory of being in the previous intertantional group that was dangerous to leave.

---

See Malta's demand to make it clear that we'll be worse off outside than inside. And Malta has been traditionally pro-UK. See also our attitude to Poles, and the Polish government's disapproval of said attitude. That's another traditionally pro-UK country. Ironically, the accession of eastern Europe was the UK's price during Thatcher's negotiations in return for allowing the single currency to go ahead. And now the influx of eastern Europeans due to the single market (another British idea) is the principal reason why people voted Leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

See Malta's demand to make it clear that we'll be worse off outside than inside. And Malta has been traditionally pro-UK. See also our attitude to Poles, and the Polish government's disapproval of said attitude. That's another traditionally pro-UK country. Ironically, the accession of eastern Europe was the UK's price during Thatcher's negotiations in return for allowing the single currency to go ahead. And now the influx of eastern Europeans due to the single market (another British idea) is the principal reason why people voted Leave.

---

The Poles are not so pro-EU now that the EU is meddling with their democracy, eastern Europe has seen it all before

relevant:

https://www.ft.com/content/f6634708-...4-13afc22d86d4

Can't see the FT article - but the title is curious. Isolation of Macron?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

Can't see the FT article - but the title is curious. Isolation of Macron?

---

Scientists have isolated the Macron particle. It's a huge development in the realm of Quantum Theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Scientists have isolated the Macron particle. It's a huge development in the realm of Quantum Theory.

---

https://www.google.com/search?q=http...ient=firefox-b

no takers on my comment on the previous page?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

https://www.google.com/search?q=http...ient=firefox-b

no takers on my comment on the previous page?

---

It is behind a paywall. But everybody knows what Macron wants anyway, more money for Franceś agricultural sector (where it is hardly used for and who wants to take a bite out of polluted food anyway) and Germany and the Netherlands must pay it

strange, works for me when i open it from a google search string.

an excerpt from the ft article on macron:

"...The British were very appreciative of French support in the recent confrontation with Russia. But ad hoc moments of strategic co-operation between Britain and France, against the background of Brexit, are not a basis for Mr Macron to be the “leader” of a new western alliance.

France’s other possibilities do not look any more promising. Mr Macron is unwilling to position himself as the leader of a southern European faction, lest this stoke German suspicions of French fiscal laxity. Italy, dominated by the populists of the Five Star movement and the League, is anyway not a natural partner for France. The Dutch, meanwhile, are moulding a new, informal “ Hanseatic League ” of northern European countries that is even more suspicious of Mr Macron’s proposed eurozone reforms than the Germans.

Central Europe looks even worse. The French president has led the way in condemning “authoritarian democracy”, an unmistakable reference to the current governments of Hungary and Poland. His frankness is welcome and bold. But it is not winning many friends in central European chancelleries.

The one part of the EU where Mr Macron gets full-throated support is Brussels. In the corridors of the European Commission, the French president is regarded as a hero. But elsewhere in Brussels there are complications. The fact that Mr Macron leads a new party, La République en Marche, means that his supporters are not part of the established power structures in the European Parliament — which is a problem when it comes to shaping legislation and parcelling out the top jobs..."

Brexit pays of ;) (sorry Pan I had to)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

strange, works for me when i open it from a google search string.

---

Sorry, unable to read it. Looked like it was potentially interesting though.

text ^ above ^

If one were to view Yes Prime Minister as Government policy (which is is not - although apparently closer than was comfortable for the politicians / civil service of the day) the UK got into the Europe "thing" to make a mess of it. And now we have managed to bring in loads of Eastern Europeans our job is done - it is again an unwieldy mess with different partners having different visions of what they want (and several countries positivity is directly related to the amount of money they get and the interference they receive)...

If the EU splits to North / South (broadly) I would be wishful of a "Nordic League" that the Tribes of Germanic Heritage (a meaningless grouping to be sure) could be a part of. The Scottish wouldn't be welcome of course. Well, perhaps right at the top...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

If one were to view Yes Prime Minister as Government policy (which is is not - although apparently closer than was comfortable for the politicians / civil service of the day) the UK got into the Europe "thing" to make a mess of it. And now we have managed to bring in loads of Eastern Europeans our job is done - it is again an unwieldy mess with different partners having different visions of what they want (and several countries positivity is directly related to the amount of money they get and the interference they receive)...

If the EU splits to North / South (broadly) I would be wishful of a "Nordic League" that the Tribes of Germanic Heritage (a meaningless grouping to be sure) could be a part of. The Scottish wouldn't be welcome of course. Well, perhaps right at the top...

~:smoking:

---

The Blair administration used to view Yes Minister as an accurate documentary portraying what government was really like. Which bemused one of his ministers, who was one of the main insider sources for said programme. Yes Minister is a comedy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The Blair administration used to view Yes Minister as an accurate documentary portraying what government was really like. Which bemused one of his ministers, who was one of the main insider sources for said programme. Yes Minister is a comedy.

---

Life is comedy.

Brexit supporters have too much pride.

A divided Europe is weaker than a unified Europe. Sure, I can wave the Californian Flag and circle jerk about the 4 months of Californian independence before someone saw a Union soldier and said "oh yeah, we're totally American's"... but the reality is that California, the world's now fifth largest economy (suck it UK) is better off being tied to Alabama, Colorado, and 47 other states that have completely different ideologies and economies.

Proud of what, the reality is that it's dumpplace for politicians who screwed up nationally, it is nothing but a VERY expensive overhead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Proud of what, the reality is that it's dumpplace for politicians who screwed up nationally, it is nothing but a VERY expensive overhead

---

Instead of focusing your skepticism on isolationism and nationalism, instead channel it into a means of progress through reform.
A unified army WHEN we get better representation through x,y,z reforms.
A strong Federal government WHEN we get better accountability through x,y,z reforms.

Why is there this disconnect that in politics we are so eager to say "fuck it, I'm out" when in life, love, and family we innately understand that communication and changes are necessary in order to achieve goals and desires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Instead of focusing your skepticism on isolationism and nationalism, instead channel it into a means of progress through reform.
A unified army WHEN we get better representation through x,y,z reforms.
A strong Federal government WHEN we get better accountability through x,y,z reforms.

Why is there this disconnect that in politics we are so eager to say "fuck it, I'm out" when in life, love, and family we innately understand that communication and changes are necessary in order to achieve goals and desires.

---

It wouldn't be quite so hypocritical if Frag were saying, "I'm out." He's saying, "They're out", opting to live within the EU whilst arguing that all the hardships of Brexit will be worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Instead of focusing your skepticism on isolationism and nationalism, instead channel it into a means of progress through reform.
A unified army WHEN we get better representation through x,y,z reforms.
A strong Federal government WHEN we get better accountability through x,y,z reforms.

Why is there this disconnect that in politics we are so eager to say "fuck it, I'm out" when in life, love, and family we innately understand that communication and changes are necessary in order to achieve goals and desires.

---

A unified army are you kidding me, do you think that armies stationed will be from their own state. They know exactly what they are doing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Brexit supporters have too much pride.

A divided Europe is weaker than a unified Europe. Sure, I can wave the Californian Flag and circle jerk about the 4 months of Californian independence before someone saw a Union soldier and said "oh yeah, we're totally American's"... but the reality is that California, the world's now fifth largest economy (suck it UK) is better off being tied to Alabama, Colorado, and 47 other states that have completely different ideologies and economies.

---

fine, well then, let's see how many Remainer's are comfortable with the idea of Britain being a the 51st state of america. with [all] that entails...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Instead of focusing your skepticism on isolationism and nationalism, instead channel it into a means of progress through reform.
A unified army WHEN we get better representation through x,y,z reforms.
A strong Federal government WHEN we get better accountability through x,y,z reforms.

Why is there this disconnect that in politics we are so eager to say "fuck it, I'm out" when in life, love, and family we innately understand that communication and changes are necessary in order to achieve goals and desires.

---

How about; we don't assent to common governance. Stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Instead of focusing your skepticism on isolationism and nationalism, instead channel it into a means of progress through reform.
A unified army WHEN we get better representation through x,y,z reforms.
A strong Federal government WHEN we get better accountability through x,y,z reforms.

Why is there this disconnect that in politics we are so eager to say "fuck it, I'm out" when in life, love, and family we innately understand that communication and changes are necessary in order to achieve goals and desires.

---

ACIN makes a good point, Frags. After all, you would be hard pressed to find a great number of opponents of the EEC. Economic coordination was a boon to Europe on any number of levels. ACIN suggests that, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, you and others of like mind call the EU politicos to task and dial back those aspects of integration that are too intrusive without discarding those that add value.

Not sure of the practical difficulties in that approach, but ACIN is making a generally valuable point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

ACIN makes a good point, Frags. After all, you would be hard pressed to find a great number of opponents of the EEC. Economic coordination was a boon to Europe on any number of levels. ACIN suggests that, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, you and others of like mind call the EU politicos to task and dial back those aspects of integration that are too intrusive without discarding those that add value.

Not sure of the practical difficulties in that approach, but ACIN is making a generally valuable point.

---

But Frag isn't throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Not his baby, anyway. Someone else's baby is being dumped in the drains along with the bathwater, but that's an acceptable sacrifice as it's all for the greater good. In the future, when that baby's parents realise what they've done and realise they'll have no more babies, they'll still say, it's all been worth it, as Frag and his family has been telling them all along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

But Frag isn't throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Not his baby, anyway. Someone else's baby is being dumped in the drains along with the bathwater, but that's an acceptable sacrifice as it's all for the greater good. In the future, when that baby's parents realise what they've done and realise they'll have no more babies, they'll still say, it's all been worth it, as Frag and his family has been telling them all along.

---

Well, it is true that Frags has no "skin in the game" so to speak. Still, I don't think he's alone in decrying EU pols or noting that the entire institution is far from flawless.

You have consistently hammered Frags for this, but to be fair, there are a number of folks making commentary here -- myself included -- who do not have a direct stake in the Brexit process?/roller-coaster?/fiasco? and yet are commenting here.

The "only a person who was part of it can know the truth" bit was part of Faurisson's assertions that the Holocaust was not provable to have occurred. You're quite aware of this being an intellectual "cheat" since people can and do learn of something without first hand experience. So why quite so hard on Frags on that aspect of his argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Well, it is true that Frags has no "skin in the game" so to speak. Still, I don't think he's alone in decrying EU pols or noting that the entire institution is far from flawless.

---

As if the national governments that created this institution were actually better. Why replace a flawed institution with a terrible one?
The EU is a good example of what can happen if you do something half-arsed, with the problem that not doing it at all is still worse.

In a world where everything needs to grow not to be outpaced, you cannot just expect the Netherlands to grow to 100 million inhabitants in order to not become insignificant. Instead they have to unite with neighbors to keep up. The union they have now is only half-baked however, so on the one hand they perceive it as not important enough to vote in its elections or to pressure for reform, on the other hand it seems important enough to complain about how it oppresses everyone.

It's basically a just a scapegoat for people who eat at McDonald's, buy groceries at ALDI, furniture at IKEA, Pizza at the Italian place, decorate their homes with African art, buy only German/Japanese cars, use US-invented, China-made computer, wear jeans from Turkey and T-Shirts from Bangladesh and hate globalism for ruining their lives while they oppose any laws that could reign in the free market and the rights of corporations to do whatever they want. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Well, it is true that Frags has no "skin in the game" so to speak. Still, I don't think he's alone in decrying EU pols or noting that the entire institution is far from flawless.

You have consistently hammered Frags for this, but to be fair, there are a number of folks making commentary here -- myself included -- who do not have a direct stake in the Brexit process?/roller-coaster?/fiasco? and yet are commenting here.

The "only a person who was part of it can know the truth" bit was part of Faurisson's assertions that the Holocaust was not provable to have occurred. You're quite aware of this being an intellectual "cheat" since people can and do learn of something without first hand experience. So why quite so hard on Frags on that aspect of his argument?

---

There's a difference between analysing a situation using evidence, which anyone can do, and making value judgements, which Frag is doing. Alone of the non-Brits, Frag is saying that the Brits should be making these sacrifices because it'll all be worth it. I feel that that kind of judgement should be left to those who have to face the consequences. Like I've said before, the neolibs of the 90s made the same arguments for Yeltsin's Russia, saying that the pain will be worth it, whilst not having to face any of that pain themselves. I despised the neolibs then, and I despise non-British Brexiteers now.

Do I merit your hatred too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

How about; we don't assent to common governance. Stop.

---

I'm still not sure why the clear alternative to "common governance" isn't intensifying deterritorialization of governance.

Or is it another layer of my misunderstanding of your position and

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

What EU will we get?
My thoughts from a few years back - not significantly changed with the arrival of brexit/macron/etc.

Does Brexit maximise regional harmony (read: the EU)?

[...]

What EU do I want?
I want an EU that does not force the little nations to knuckle under the 'consensus' thrashed out by the bigger boys.
Britain was big enough and ugly enough to carve out the opt-outs it needed, but that is not true of many of the smaller nations.
For this reason i would have been very happy with a remain vote if Belgium had not demanded that exemption to ever closer union must apply only to britain. A more callous and selfish act I have rarely seen!
Since this was the result, i'd be more than happy if we ended up back in EFTA, with the intention of creating a power block to push back against ever closer union.
To be clear, my aim is not to obstruct European nations from going where they want to go, but to prevent the EU from steamrolling nations that don't wish to go with them.

---

is actually a dialectical argument that considers instigating a crisis in the system as part of the path to a resolution (like Slavoj Zizek on global capitalism and the Trump election)?


Social engineering is always a gamble. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Do I merit your hatred too?

---

Are you going to be living in the UK post-Brexit? Farage's hurried registration of his family with German passports merits my contempt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

There's a difference between analysing a situation using evidence, which anyone can do, and making value judgements, which Frag is doing. Alone of the non-Brits, Frag is saying that the Brits should be making these sacrifices because it'll all be worth it. I feel that that kind of judgement should be left to those who have to face the consequences. Like I've said before, the neolibs of the 90s made the same arguments for Yeltsin's Russia, saying that the pain will be worth it, whilst not having to face any of that pain themselves. I despised the neolibs then, and I despise non-British Brexiteers now.

---

Oh stop falling in love with me it makes me blush

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

fine, well then, let's see how many Remainer's are comfortable with the idea of Britain being a the 51st state of america. with [all] that entails...

---

I don't understand the point, if we offered and you had appropriate representation...wouldn't it be a good idea?

Quote:

---

How about; we don't assent to common governance. Stop.

---

But you are already under a common governance with three other countries [no I don't care about the details of verbiage and UK history/structure, it is not relevant to the point].
How is the European Union any less arbitrary than your current political union?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

ACIN makes a good point, Frags. After all, you would be hard pressed to find a great number of opponents of the EEC. Economic coordination was a boon to Europe on any number of levels. ACIN suggests that, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, you and others of like mind call the EU politicos to task and dial back those aspects of integration that are too intrusive without discarding those that add value.

Not sure of the practical difficulties in that approach, but ACIN is making a generally valuable point.

---

The UK has been allowed to leave not just in theory but in practice. Therefore any country is free to leave at any point and with that freedom of choice provides leverage.

I initially thought that the Tory's were going to do exactly that when the Brexit vote happened. Well, we must leave unless you can make an offer that we can give back to the people as a show of good faith towards a fairer union.
To be honest, I have not followed Brexit that much, but either the EU was OK with UK leaving which just perplexes me because that seems like a loss no matter how they spin it OR the Tories really screwed up by going straight to "we're out".

Future votes to leave the EU and subsequent fallout will be handled very differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I'm still not sure why the clear alternative to "common governance" isn't intensifying deterritorialization of governance.

---

It isn't a clear alternative to anything, as international treaty law with its spongy interpretability and poor understood mandate is an exceedingly poor way to govern social interaction.
Further, we all clearly submit to common governance (with the possible exception of somalia), but there is no moral reasoning that would necessitate a nation of people assenting to a governance by a different polity if that was not their express wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Or is it another layer of my misunderstanding of your position and is actually a dialectical argument that considers instigating a crisis in the system as part of the path to a resolution (like Slavoj Zizek on global capitalism and the Trump election)?

---

Closer, but dialectical in what sense? I tend to talk about it in fairly dry terms, but the subject discussed is politics and political identity, and ultimately that is a matter of personal sentiment and emotional attachment.
I do think the Zizek argument has some application here, as I believe the EU to be a dysfunctional form of government in being unable to usefully represent the desires of its various people[s] it has a tendency to stasis. Which makes it an inflexible construct that has low adaptability to accommodate shifting circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Social engineering is always a gamble. :shrug:

---

Agreed. A charge I would lay at the feet of the pro-eu elites in two separate parts; 1. with the likes of new labour treating mass immigration as a tool for social transformation. 2. on the part of eu policy makers that seek to enhance and promote regional identity within the EU such that national identity loses tractability and visibility. Was the context in which you raised the point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The UK has been allowed to leave not just in theory but in practice. Therefore any country is free to leave at any point and with that freedom of choice provides leverage.

I initially thought that the Tory's were going to do exactly that when the Brexit vote happened. Well, we must leave unless you can make an offer that we can give back to the people as a show of good faith towards a fairer union.
To be honest, I have not followed Brexit that much, but either the EU was OK with UK leaving which just perplexes me because that seems like a loss no matter how they spin it OR the Tories really screwed up by going straight to "we're out".

Future votes to leave the EU and subsequent fallout will be handled very differently.

---

Very differently yes, that is why there can not be such a thing as a unified army, it is a mostly useless bureaucracy that has little reason to exist, but will fight to stay alive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Very differently yes, that is why there can not be such a thing as a unified army, it is a mostly useless bureaucracy that has little reason to exist, but will fight to stay alive

---

Fragony:

Some of the pro EU crowd no doubt hope that a 'unified army' will be unifying of Europe. That soldiers, trained to high standard and enculturated to serve the whole entity rather than a part of it, enculturated to support and defend the compact that is the EU and not its constituents, will yield a steadily growing number of citizens and leaders whose allegiance is to the entity of the whole and not of the particulars. This is not an impossible goal.

However, to really enact this kind of enculturation, the EU would need to conduct all of the training of such forces for the first several years of service and would have to put formations together without regard for place of origin -- stapling together a "unified" army from extant formations in the existing NATO force structure will not accomplish any meaningful cultural change -- it would be a patchwork at best and a Frankenstein's monster at worst.

Given your adamant opposition to the EU, I would think you would WANT them to enact and deploy that patchwork. I can think of few things that would undermine the EU more effectively then the EU leadership sending Scandinavian (for e.g.) troops to force compliance from Catalonia or deploying Poles to require Sweden to accept a greater share of immigrant refugees etc. That's the kind of 'foreign occupation' thing most guaranteed to place the population in opposition to EU leadership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

It isn't a clear alternative to anything, as international treaty law with its spongy interpretability and poor understood mandate is an exceedingly poor way to govern social interaction.
Further, we all clearly submit to common governance (with the possible exception of somalia), but there is no moral reasoning that would necessitate a nation of people assenting to a governance by a different polity if that was not their express wish.

---

Deterritorialization.

Your preference/expectation for a successful Brexit is a Singapore model, a market economy of services. A globally-embedded market economy necessarily removes local control in favor of the interests of influential horizontally-mobile market actors, and a service economy in this context is heavily fluctuating and precarious as the small fry contract on an irregular basis and desperately compete to maintain value against one another. In other words, intensifying the economic trends of the past two generations.

I guess, as with Singapore, wealthy technocrats heavily repress personal rights and social group interests to maintain conditions for market churn? Why not a Lichtenstein model, a minimally-populated tax haven free market utopia that is HOLY CRAP A LITERAL MONARCHY.

Socialists like Corbyn of course have a different take on the opportunities of Brexit. I'll present their view later on. A little bit like your A2 "UKIP[???]-driven scenario"; I can't help but feel they're too optimistic about their case, since your scenario is the default trend for the world at-large regardless of Brexit.

Quote:

---

Agreed. A charge I would lay at the feet of the pro-eu elites in two separate parts; 1. with the likes of new labour treating mass immigration as a tool for social transformation. 2. on the part of eu policy makers that seek to enhance and promote regional identity within the EU such that national identity loses tractability and visibility. Was the context in which you raised the point?

---

Hasn't the fatal flaw with the European Union been that the leadership wanted it both ways, broad new institutions and agendas without taking the effort or commitment to reshaping the popular consciousness?

You seemed to advance that a non-failed Brexit is the best case for pushing the EU into the form you would like to see it take, something that itself depends on dramatic future shifts in the consciousness and attitudes of various national populations (facilitated by political and economic shocks of Brexit).

So, social engineering at a certain remove.

It's bacon and eggs for breakfast and the EU is selling chicken when they need to be selling pig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I don't understand the point, if we offered and you had appropriate representation...wouldn't it be a good idea?



But you are already under a common governance with three other countries [no I don't care about the details of verbiage and UK history/structure, it is not relevant to the point].
How is the European Union any less arbitrary than your current political union?

---

For myself, I'd be no less comfortable with the US than the EU, but then the US leans toward my preferences in focusing more on individual liberty than group equality, limited gov't, and and activist foreign policy. But I think we all know that our ardent remainders here would spit tacks if the prospect were in the offing.

Sure, but every form of representative governance is a compromise that best meets the will of the group. The wider the ideological gulf of the group the less satisfactory the end compromise, and the less efficient the action of government in seeking to make and implement policy. The EU is already in lowest common denominator territory. And again, I'm not obliged to accept it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

For myself, I'd be no less comfortable with the US than the EU, but then the US leans toward my preferences in focusing more on individual liberty than group equality, limited gov't, and and activist foreign policy. But I think we all know that our ardent remainders here would spit tacks if the prospect were in the offing.

Sure, but every form of representative governance is a compromise that best meets the will of the group. The wider the ideological gulf of the group the less satisfactory the end compromise, and the less efficient the action of government in seeking to make and implement policy. The EU is already in lowest common denominator territory. And again, I'm not obliged to accept it.

---

The US interpretation of the Second Amendment is far more removed from any society I identify with than anything the EU has come up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Fragony:

Some of the pro EU crowd no doubt hope that a 'unified army' will be unifying of Europe. That soldiers, trained to high standard and enculturated to serve the whole entity rather than a part of it, enculturated to support and defend the compact that is the EU and not its constituents, will yield a steadily growing number of citizens and leaders whose allegiance is to the entity of the whole and not of the particulars. This is not an impossible goal.

However, to really enact this kind of enculturation, the EU would need to conduct all of the training of such forces for the first several years of service and would have to put formations together without regard for place of origin -- stapling together a "unified" army from extant formations in the existing NATO force structure will not accomplish any meaningful cultural change -- it would be a patchwork at best and a Frankenstein's monster at worst.

Given your adamant opposition to the EU, I would think you would WANT them to enact and deploy that patchwork. I can think of few things that would undermine the EU more effectively then the EU leadership sending Scandinavian (for e.g.) troops to force compliance from Catalonia or deploying Poles to require Sweden to accept a greater share of immigrant refugees etc. That's the kind of 'foreign occupation' thing most guaranteed to place the population in opposition to EU leadership.

---

The EU has a very high probability to turn into a whacked dyspotia, one that was never needed. Itś a political project at first, free trade already was there. Congratulate us with a new aristocracy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The EU has a very high probability to turn into a whacked dyspotia, one that was never needed. Itś a political project at first, free trade already was there. Congratulate us with a new aristocracy

---

No it's not. It's a wonderful utopia that we desperately need. It's a project of the people at first and a natural consequence of free trade and a love for peace and prosperity for all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

It's bacon and eggs for breakfast and the EU is selling chicken when they need to be selling pig.

---

The Chicken is involved, but the Pig is committed!

So the Pig is, like, Jesus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

No it's not. It's a wonderful utopia that we desperately need. It's a project of the people at first and a natural consequence of free trade and a love for peace and prosperity for all.

---

No it is a parasitical overhead that gets into your pants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Deterritorialization.

---

Having read The Rule of Law in Crisis and Conflict Grey Zones, Regulating the Use of Force in a Global Information Environment, I chose to read the word above as the use of international normative law. An emerging doctrine that essentially gives life to the concept, but since it is not accepted and universal fact the enormous majority of de-territorial law is in fact international treaty. Which would fail for the reasons specified, and there is nothing to indicate that normative law does not suffer the same problems. Do you have a different interpretation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Your preference/expectation for a successful Brexit is a Singapore model, a market economy of services. A globally-embedded market economy necessarily removes local control in favor of the interests of influential horizontally-mobile market actors, and a service economy in this context is heavily fluctuating and precarious as the small fry contract on an irregular basis and desperately compete to maintain value against one another. In other words, intensifying the economic trends of the past two generations.

---

Everything is relative. A Singapore in europe doesn't have to be anything more than a nation that keeps public spending at 5% of GDP lower than the median for the EU, with regulation at a similar level of unobtrusiveness. Let's say 37.5% (versus 42.5%), and our existing penchant for non-socialised regulation of finance, energy, gm, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I guess, as with Singapore, wealthy technocrats heavily repress personal rights and social group interests to maintain conditions for market churn? Why not a Lichtenstein model, a minimally-populated tax haven free market utopia that is HOLY CRAP A LITERAL MONARCHY.

---

So I don't really think this scenario applies. Afterall, it isn't like the rest of the anglosphere doesn't operate on exactly the same basis already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Socialists like Corbyn of course have a different take on the opportunities of Brexit. I'll present their view later on. A little bit like your A2 "UKIP[???]-driven scenario"; I can't help but feel they're too optimistic about their case, since your scenario is the default trend for the world at-large regardless of Brexit.

---

I would be keen to hear some try and put a structure on how the corbynite left hopes to succeed as a left-wing country outside the protectionist bloc that enables such structure...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Hasn't the fatal flaw with the European Union been that the leadership wanted it both ways, broad new institutions and agendas without taking the effort or commitment to reshaping the popular consciousness?

---

Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day it is just politics (and it is just that), and i'm not obliged to assent to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

You seemed to advance that a non-failed Brexit is the best case for pushing the EU into the form you would like to see it take, something that itself depends on dramatic future shifts in the consciousness and attitudes of various national populations (facilitated by political and economic shocks of Brexit).
So, social engineering at a certain remove.

---

Not social engineering, political engineering. A process that happens all the time everywhere, as governence must perforce respond to changing circumstances.
To be specific: do you think my scenarios of the EU evolution are realistic? And what might you suggest in their stead?

You are lucky, Germany and France might fuck but they do not make love, in the end France is a whore who wants money and Germany gladly gives it if nonody tells his wife. Basic EU-politics explained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No it is a parasitical overhead that gets into your pants

---

I've got to be numb there because I never noticed.
The only thing I did notice was that I could call my dad in your country without having to worry about roaming fees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You are lucky, Germany and France might fuck but they do not make love, in the end France is a whore who wants money and Germany gladly gives it if nonody tells his wife. Basic EU-politics explained.

---

I notice a trend here...
What happened to Squirrels and Ferrets? Are you switching over to dark fantasy or argument noir?

If they can why can't I, oh right, fake news, I forgot that everytihing anti-EU is fake-news

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

If they can why can't I, oh right, fake news, I forgot that everytihing anti-EU is fake-news

---

You can come here and call your mom without roaming fees. Don't worry so much about these fake news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Socialists like Corbyn of course have a different take on the opportunities of Brexit. I'll present their view later on. A little bit like your A2 "UKIP[???]-driven scenario"; I can't help but feel they're too optimistic about their case, since your scenario is the default trend for the world at-large regardless of Brexit.

---

Paul Mason has beaten you to it:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ssels-sabotage

Quote:

---

For the left, however, the social market economy is the specific European form of neoliberalism: it prefers private over public, vaunts market mechanism over state direction or subsidy, relies on effective competition to make capitalism fairer, rather than strong regulation. The Bad Godesberg principle adopted by the German social democrats in 1959 – market where possible, state where necessary – was never accepted by British social democracy at the time, and has come to embody the neoliberal reflexes through which Germany runs, dominates and exploits the Eurozone.

A third problem is the domestic political reality Labour expects to face as it enacts the most radical left programme any major country has ever undertaken. The “very British coup” scenario is a non-starter. But mild civil service obstruction, combined with destabilisation by private security and intelligence firms, combined with the nabobs of Brussels issuing arbitrary and vindictive rulings, combined with 30-odd Blairite Labour rebels … that’s what Corbyn needs to guard against.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Having read The Rule of Law in Crisis and Conflict Grey Zones, Regulating the Use of Force in a Global Information Environment, I chose to read the word above as the use of international normative law. An emerging doctrine that essentially gives life to the concept, but since it is not accepted and universal fact the enormous majority of de-territorial law is in fact international treaty. Which would fail for the reasons specified, and there is nothing to indicate that normative law does not suffer the same problems. Do you have a different interpretation?

---

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:

Quote:

---

the severance of social, political, or cultural practices from their native places and populations.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Everything is relative. A Singapore in europe doesn't have to be anything more than a nation that keeps public spending at 5% of GDP lower than the median for the EU, with regulation at a similar level of unobtrusiveness. Let's say 37.5% (versus 42.5%), and our existing penchant for non-socialised regulation of finance, energy, gm, etc.

---

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.

Quote:

---

So I don't really think this scenario applies. Afterall, it isn't like the rest of the anglosphere doesn't operate on exactly the same basis already.

---

What are you referring to?

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.

Quote:

---

Not social engineering, political engineering. A process that happens all the time everywhere, as governance must perforce respond to changing circumstances.

---

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.

Quote:

---

To be specific: do you think my scenarios of the EU evolution are realistic? And what might you suggest in their stead?

---

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".