Europe

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

One of the problems with the EU is that smaller countries mewl like piglets when anything that threatens their disproportionate power within the EU is proposed (Read: Democracy). If France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Poland and Spain just said "Luxembourg, Ireland, Malta; STFU.", we would have a much more efficient and democratic EU.

That shouldn't be such a big step, silencing those who disagree with you is already part of the new European "democracy."

[Beskar]

On the plus side, it is less bloodly than the previous attempts of uniting Europe over the last few hundred years.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

On the plus side, it is less bloodly than the previous attempts of uniting Europe over the last few hundred years.

So far, but you'd think they'd learn enough to give up after a while.

[Beskar]

So far, but you'd think they'd learn enough to give up after a while.

There is unfortunately a big advantage in doing it, especially for places like Britain which is very overcrowded and no resources for industry themselves. They look over to the East, a land full of pots of gold ready to be digged up, and perhaps shift some of the population over there too.

[Furunculus]

what are these lands to the east?

[Beskar]

Those with natural resources to plunder and need population in order to plunder them. Countries like Poland, etc.

Argubly, you could use free-trade to do that though. However, it is probably politically cheaper to dig it up yourself and just take it for elsewhere.

Biggest reason for empires is to attain resources for your Empire at the lowest possible dominator, also, bringing politically stability and control to those resources. This is why Britain had an Empire, this is while all other nations had an Empire or wanted a Empire, it's the foundation of all Empires is basic economic control and wealth, with further political control to stabilize the economy.

[Furunculus]

so is that the core motivator for left-wing EU enthusiasts; that by banding together in an exercise of empire building you will manage to preserve europe as an island of social democracy, impervious to the perfidious influences of capitalist and merchant'alist ideologies?

btw, i disagree that free trade is not the best way to achieve this end in the 21st century.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


there are a number of interesting video interviews at this site:
http://www.greateudebate.com/

from various viewpoints about the britain's relationship with the EU.

only seen Danial Hannan's so far, but it is well worth watching, as are many of the others i suspect too:
http://www.greateudebate.com/2009/da...nservative-mep


-

[Beskar]

so is that the core motivator for left-wing EU enthusiasts; that by banding together in an exercise of empire building you will manage to preserve europe as an island of social democracy, impervious to the perfidious influences of capitalist and merchant'alist ideologies?

btw, i disagree that free trade is not the best way to achieve this end in the 21st century.

You put it in words I could never have done.

I wasn't speaking purely from my own point of view, but that could be a explanation of why many people would want it, speaking from an historical Empire viewpoint for reference (negative implications aside for now).

[Louis VI the Fat]

If France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Poland and Spain just said "Luxembourg, Ireland, Malta; STFU.", we would have a much more efficient and democratic EU.

The last time we told a small and insignificant country to STFU, those Poles indeed mewled even louder than those two pot-bellied pigs I keep for a hobby.


I agree that very tiny countries like Malta and Ireland would be better off kept under the guidance of mature nations, yes. In fact, I don't see why Ireland should not simply be a part of the UK. Europe is not cluttered with an independent Cornwall or Isle of Wight either.

[Furunculus]

unfortunately that is because you fail to recognise that national sovereignty is still important to people, and ireland has no wish to be governed by the UK.

[Beskar]

I agree in that Ireland joining the Britain would be bad for it, in the current state of Britain. Europe has the potentional to do things right, unfortunately, it most likely won't go down the right route.

If European actually goes the Swiss route, then it would be a very diplomatic force which could make it great. However, it most likely turn into the shadow of the USSR/USA.

Very idea that a President of Europe won't be elected by its people is pretty sickening.

[Furunculus]

what do you mean by diplomatic force, and how is that reinforced by a swiss federal system?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


re: the greateudebate

here is a pro EU interview with Richard Laming of the European movement:

http://www.greateudebate.com/2009/ri...pean-movement/

[Beskar]

Swiss federal style system inplace ontop of the current European system would be a big step towards a diplomatic Europe, where discisions are made in conjunction of the people of Europe and their delegates for their states in Parliament.

Compared to the system now where we elect people PR style into a parliament and it is ran by them and European quango's who mae decisions such as who the next leader is, etc.

European President should be a full European election from all member states. If I am honest, I am also believer that the cabinet as it were, should get elected individually as well. So that will go for the foreign secretary, etc.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would love an elected president, and more power to the parliament. This will make the EU more directly accountable and transparant.

Alas, the anti-federalists will have none of it.

[Beskar]

I am curious, what do Furunculus and EMFM think? Do you think the president should be elected across Europe from the populace of member states? Or the quango-styled oppointment which is going on?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I don't think there should be a President at all, especially with post-Lisbon powers. Ideally I would prefer them to be elected if we have to have one.

[Furunculus]

I am curious, what do Furunculus and EMFM think? Do you think the president should be elected across Europe from the populace of member states? Or the quango-styled oppointment which is going on?

i am absolutely in favour of directly electing the people who govern me.

however Louis is right; the problem is that i have no wish to be ruled from europe, by europe, and in the name of europe. so i take the principled stance of throwing every spanner into the cogs that i can find to slow down the loss of british national sovereignty. i have no wish to see the EU gain legitimacy because i do not want to be ruled from brussels.

the problem you have is that if i cannot be a good neighbour, i will be an atrocious tenant.

as long as europe connives with our own politicians to keep us inside an ever deeper union i believe you will find the British people will force their politicians into euro-skeptic positions necessary to stop outright revolution, so we will always be an atrocious tenant because the British people see no reason to opt for a federal EU governance.

it might be best for everybody if we left to join EFTA, because I really do want to be a good neighbour.

[Subotan]

That shouldn't be such a big step, silencing those who disagree with you is already part of the new European "democracy."

You miss this point; the EU focus on equality of states, not the nations and peoples which male up those states. That's the root cause of the "democratic deficit", as the vote of one German is worth considerably less that the vote of one Maltese, and this is exploited by cynical politicians and megalomaniacs. I'm not silencing those who disagree with me, I'm silencing corruption.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You miss this point; the EU focus on equality of states, not the nations and peoples which male up those states. That's the root cause of the "democratic deficit", as the vote of one German is worth considerably less that the vote of one Maltese, and this is exploited by cynical politicians and megalomaniacs. I'm not silencing those who disagree with me, I'm silencing corruption.

The argument that you make here directly contradicts the standard pro-European argument that little countries will suddenly have more say on the world stage.

[Beskar]

I know we are getting a EU which I don't want. Now we gone over the step where we are actually part of a EU, we can now work to change it.

[Furunculus]

"i sense............. a disturbance in the force, it speaks of of strong parallels between your desires and Canutes tides."

really Beskar, our politicians have been playing that game for since before Mastrict, and it has had two results:

1. It has alienated British people from european political constructs. do not confuse xenophobia with EUro-skepticism.

2. It has made Britain into a very bad EUropean tenant because of the contortions WE force our politicians to perform.

Might it not be just better all round if we let EUrope get on with their federalism, as we cheer them on from the sidelines as a good neighbour should?

[Subotan]

The argument that you make here directly contradicts the standard pro-European argument that little countries will suddenly have more say on the world stage.

Again, you misinterpreted my argument. The individual states which make up the EU will have less power, such as the way in which Rhode Island has less influence internationally than California, however, the people within those countries will have more influence as individuals internationally due to them being part of the European Union.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Again, you misinterpreted my argument. The individual states which make up the EU will have less power, such as the way in which Rhode Island has less influence internationally than California, however, the people within those countries will have more influence as individuals internationally due to them being part of the European Union.

Which is a contradictory argument. You will shut them up, close their embassies, and deprive them of an equal share in the vote. They will not be allowed even the minor foreign policy they hold now. Therefore, joining the European Union under any system but the present one will strongly devalue their power. For this reason the European Union will not work - it will either be undemocratic or will not achieve its goals. There are other reasons, of course, but that is a big one.

[Subotan]

Which is a contradictory argument. You will shut them up, close their embassies, and deprive them of an equal share in the vote. .

Once again, you have confused equality of states with the equality of people within those states.

They will not be allowed even the minor foreign policy they hold now.

In that case, why shouldn't Cornwall become independent? Or Bavaria? Or Brittany? Or even Frisia, Lusatia, or the Faores?
I could go on. You couldn't say that the people in those regions are denied a voice on the world stage, just because they happen to be part of a bigger nation.

Therefore, joining the European Union under any system but the present one will strongly devalue their power.

Yes, of the governments of those states. Which is what I want, and what Europe needs.

[QUOTE=Evil_Maniac From Mars;2379852]For this reason the European Union will not work - it will either be undemocratic or will not achieve its goals./QUOTE]

Heh, people said the same thing about the USA.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Once again, you have confused equality of states with the equality of people within those states.

In a democracy these should be one and the same. If you devalue the power of those states you devalue the power of the people they represent.

In that case, why shouldn't Cornwall become independent? Or Bavaria? Or Brittany? Or even Frisia, Lusatia, or the Faores?
I could go on. You couldn't say that the people in those regions are denied a voice on the world stage, just because they happen to be part of a bigger nation.

It isn't the same argument, and I can refer you to the website that was linked to by Furunculus which will explain why.

Yes, of the governments of those states. Which is what I want, and what Europe needs.

The governments which represent the people should have reduced power? While it may be what you want, I want the government representing me to have as much power as possible. Progressive erosion of proper representation isn't what Europe needs or what her people need, it is what elements of the political class in Europe desire.

Heh, people said the same thing about the USA.

Perhaps, but by now they should have realized that the USA and the European Union are two entirely different entities in almost every respect. For a start, the USA is a national entity, the European Union is supranational.

[Beskar]

Perhaps, but by now they should have realized that the USA and the European Union are two entirely different entities in almost every respect. For a start, the USA is a national entity, the European Union is supranational.

Federal Europe would arguably become a national entity. It is only supranational in the sense that they are recognised as nations making it up, opposed to USA where California, etc isn't classed as a nation.

Also, Europe should serve the needs of the people of Europe and the people of Europe being equal. It shouldn't directly serve the needs of a nation within.

[Furunculus]

Federal Europe would arguably become a national entity. It is only supranational in the sense that they are recognised as nations making it up, opposed to USA where California, etc isn't classed as a nation.

only if the peoples within accept it as such.....................

[Beskar]

only if the peoples within accept it as such.....................

Yes, which is why said "could arguably become" and not said about it being so now.

[Subotan]

In a democracy these should be one and the same. ..

That is impossible.

If you devalue the power of those states you devalue the power of the people they represent.

Not if you increase their representation as a whole, through stronger, more meaningful Europe-wide elections.

It isn't the same argument, and I can refer you to the website that was linked to by Furunculus which will explain why.

Ok, sure. Link plz.

The governments which represent the people should have reduced power? While it may be what you want, I want the government representing me to have as much power as possible. Progressive erosion of proper representation isn't what Europe needs or what her people need, it is what elements of the political class in Europe desire.

You're not following. Reducing the power of the national entities (E.g. Luxembourg) would have to be met by a corresponding increase in both power and representation in the EU. I wouldn't suport a measure that didn't, and I'm sure nobody else in Europe would either.

Perhaps, but by now they should have realized that the USA and the European Union are two entirely different entities in almost every respect.

How so? The EU looks quite similar to the early Republic.

For a start, the USA is a national entity, the European Union is supranational.

This disregards the fact that the Republic was made of thirteen seperate colonies, which were effectively, umm, countries.

[Furunculus]

Time for some more Der Spiegel loving.

The European Union is struggling to find a president and a foreign minister:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...661595,00.html

Europe's Bumbling Search for an International Voice
By Hans-Jürgen Schlamp in Brussels

With the Lisbon Treaty soon to become reality, the European Union is struggling to find a president and a foreign minister. The dream of an EU diplomatic service is within grasp, but will it make a difference? Members of the European Parliament are already warning of a "bureaucratic monster."
It should have been a triumphant week of fireworks and celebratory fanfare. The new Lisbon Treaty has been ratified and the EU is about to embark on a new era, which will finally give Europe an entirely new ability to shape its political future.

Only two leading figures are still being sought to add new luster and generate new momentum for the community: a permanent European Council president, who will endeavor to unite the often quarrelsome European club, and a foreign minister, who will represent the continent on the global stage and act as the voice of the 27 member countries.
But it will be a difficult week for Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt -- and for Europe. This week the EU risks getting egg on its face once again -- and Europe will lay the cornerstone for a new mega-bureaucracy.

Now it is up to Reinfeldt -- who currently holds the six-month rotating EU presidency -- to avert the EU's next scandal. The only problem is that some of his colleagues have no desire to allow things to proceed smoothly.

Bickering with the Neighbors

The search for the two top politicians on the continent has degenerated into petty squabbling. Forget the spirit of European unity: Eastern Europe is at odds with Western Europe, small countries are bickering with their larger neighbors, and nationalists are locking horns with utopians who dream of a United States of Europe. And the usual alliances are once again being forged in the backrooms of Brussels.

Reinfeldt has negotiated with all 26 of his counterparts, but perhaps he lacked skill, or was too naïve or inexperienced. In any case, he has failed in his attempts to gain a majority for one candidate or the other. Now all hopes are being pinned on a Brussels "working dinner" this coming Thursday.
It could end up being a "very long dinner," warned the Swede, who is threatening, if necessary, to have the matter decided by a majority vote, instead of unanimously.

That would be a magnificent false start for the new Europe. It would, of course, be an embarrassment for the European Council president if part of the continent voted against him. But it would also make life extremely difficult for the EU's new foreign policy representative -- the man who, due to pressure from the British, will not be allowed to call himself the "EU Foreign Minister," but merely the "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy."
Massimo D'Alema, Italy's former prime minister and former foreign minister, currently has the best chances of getting the job. At first glance, it looks like D'Alema would assume a powerful position. He would become Javier Solana's heir as secretary-general of the Council and, at the same time, take over the portfolio of the EU foreign commissioner and serve as the vice president of the European Commission. No one has ever held a seat in both institutions, the Council and the Commission.

The EU's military and police agencies will be placed under the command of the future foreign policy head. He or she will also be responsible for coordinating security and defense policies, and will serve as the prominent head of the EU at political events in other parts of the world.

Dreams of an Equal Footing

To achieve this mission, a powerful administration will be placed at the foreign minister's disposal, something which promises to be both expensive and enormous. The new "European External Action Service" could end up with a staff of 6,000 to 7,000 eurocrats. The EU would acquire yet another bloated bureaucracy -- without eliminating a single permanent position in the foreign ministries of the 27 member states. [good!]

For decades, dedicated Europeans have dreamt of a unified foreign policy. They yearn to be on an equal footing with the superpowers -- always available, always capable of action. They finally want to speak with one voice and avoid fiascos such as during the Iraq war, when the EU was deeply divided in its position on the US-led invasion.

Hopefully, the days will be over when Solana, the EU's top diplomat, railed against electoral fraud in Kenya, while at the same time the EU development commissioner transferred millions of euros to the bank accounts of those who had rigged the elections. The EU also wants to put an end to embarrassing missions such as during the Russia-Georgia war in 2008, when French President Nicolas Sarkozy unilaterally negotiated a cease-fire with the Kremlin that most Europeans found unsatisfactory.

An Annoying Rival

Other foreign policy initiatives have also ended in humiliation. In 2008 the Mediterranean Union turned out to be a French ego trip, and when the EU launched its so-called Eastern Partnership in Prague in May of this year, most Western European leaders shunned the founding summit, out of consideration for Russia. In view of the historical, political and cultural diversity of Europe, it can hardly be expected that 27 highly diverse countries would have the same opinion on issues such as the war in Afghanistan, peacekeeping troops for Africa or aid missions in the Balkans. However, a foreign minister armed with courage and skill would have an easier time forging compromises.
This is what the architects of the Lisbon Treaty had in mind. They want a strong and influential figure at the helm of Europe's foreign ministry. But the closer this new Brussels mega-bureaucracy has come to becoming a reality, the clearer it has become that this intention ultimately may not be reflected by the end product.

The dream of a European diplomatic offensive has started to crumble. Representing the EU to the outside world requires influence and prestige, yet the majority of Europe's leading politicians see the future foreign minister in Brussels as little more than an annoying rival. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown all want to see a figure who can be reined in whenever necessary. [No kidding!]

Not surprisingly, the top candidates currently under discussion to become the EU's chief diplomat are all colorless types -- in addition to D'Alema, there is the current EU commissioner for enlargement, Finland's Olli Rehn, and former Romanian Foreign Minister Adrian Severin.

On a Short Leash

To make matters worse, strict limits will be placed on the future chief diplomat's autonomy, as outlined in a 10-page paper which was approved at the EU summit in October. During the EU's regular consultations with the leaders of Russia, China or the US, the Council and the Commission presidents will do the talking. The foreign minister merely plays a "supportive role," as they call it in Brussels.

In addition to being placed on a short leash at such summits, Europe's chief diplomat will also not be allowed to venture beyond strictly defined limits when dealing with day-to-day politics. The high representative may be allowed to speak with the Turkish government about its relations with Iraq, but he or she will be prohibited from discussing with Ankara the prerequisites for possible EU membership, such as freedom of the press and respecting human rights. In the future, the issue of Turkish membership will still be reserved for the Commission.

In the Balkans the top EU diplomat can talk about everything under the sun -- but will be strictly forbidden from mentioning possible financial aid from Brussels. Everything that has to do with EU enlargement falls under the jurisdiction of the Commission. The top diplomat will also have to steer clear of key areas such as foreign aid and international trade.

The enormous flock of aides to the high representative could also create additional confusion. They are quite a mixed bunch. A few hundred experts from the European Council are to team up with 3,000 colleagues from the Commission. This group will be joined by as many as 2,000 additional diplomats and experts from all the member states. No one knows how the selection process will take place. Should the eurocrats submit a blanket application to the new institution or apply for specific jobs?

Coveted Jobs

The heads of state and government have decided that all candidates should be highly qualified. They also demand that a third of the workforce should be selected so that the staff adequately represents Europe's far-flung geography -- no country should be neglected. The regional distribution has to be balanced, along with the genders of staff members. What's more, plans call for them to be replaced every four years -- and regularly rotate jobs during their tour of duty.
This will almost inevitably lead to a high degree of frustration and low productivity among the staff. [Who'd have guessed!]There will be no lack of applicants. These jobs are coveted, especially in Europe's less affluent regions. A top diplomat in Bulgaria earns at most about €800 ($1,200) a month back home. In Brussels he would receive 10 times that salary, even if he only had a peripheral job in the administration.

At the moment, the European Commission already maintains over 130 branch offices around the world -- from Morocco to Macedonia and from Brazil to Burkina Faso. Over 5,000 EU employees write reports there, bring money into the country, monitor the allocation of these funds and make politics. Brussels is even present in Fiji, where it has no less than 35 employees.

The EU staff faces a shake-up. They will now be carefully sorted, with some being integrated into the new foreign office, while others will be hired by the Commission to serve as aid workers. All representations, whether they are located on Samoa or Fiji, will be replenished with fresh recruits from Warsaw, Prague or Malta, at least at the management level. It goes without saying that additional chauffeurs, cooks and gardeners will also be hired.

Fears of a Monster

It is hoped that this new European foreign ministry will become a cohesive entity, but EU parliamentarian Inge Grässle fears that it could rapidly turn out to be a "bureaucratic monster" with "27 power structures in Brussels and their satellites in the branch offices." Grässle, a German budgetary expert with the center-right Christian Democratic Union, says that the only thing that will ultimately matter is: "Who is reporting to whom and who is monitoring whom?"

The new foreign office also qualifies as a legally independent institution, which belongs to neither the Council nor the Commission. This largely excludes the European Parliament from participating in foreign and security policy. It will even limit its control of financial matters, which is normally a prerogative of any parliament.

Many members of the European Parliament are not willing to simply accept this. "The diplomatic service will decide the future of the EU," says CDU MEP Elmar Brok, who is calling for resistance to the new developments. Even Martin Schulz, the chairman of the Socialist group in the European Parliament, would like to see "a step toward more integration or a step back toward a Europe of governments." [Common sense at last!]

Uncertain Future

Meanwhile workers at the European Commission in Brussels appear more concerned about their own interests. At a recent general assembly there, a crowd of several hundred employees thronged the hall. There was a palpable mood of uncertainty. Currently some 6,000 Commission officials attend to Europe's relations with the rest of the world, and the services of only roughly half of them will be required in the new foreign office. "We are like the people at Opel," said one uncertain civil servant, referring to the troubled German carmaker. "We don't know what will happen to us."
The man doesn't have too much to worry about. Those experts in the foreign policy departments of the EU headquarters who will not be absorbed by the new foreign office won't have to fear for their well-paid jobs -- there is basically an employment guarantee in Brussels.
In a worst-case scenario, they will be transferred to a cushy position in one of the EU departments that already have a large number of personnel today -- and relatively little work to do. [It's enough to make one weep!]

Why was this necessary in the first place?