EU, EU, EU - out, out, out

[McHrozni]

Really? You can't see the problem?

Personally, I would prefer democracy rather than bureaucracy running the show.

Certainly. The extent EU bureocracy rules the EU is roughly similar to the extent national bureocracies rule their nations though. I perfer bureocrats who have no (or at least significantly less) allegiances to local barons than to those who do.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

the lack of democracy in the EU is my main reason to oppose my country joining the EU.
heck we often already oppose federal laws in favor of cantonal laws because we don't want to be told what to do by some guys in Bern. and Bern is just a few corners away. imagen if we are told from Brussel what to do. lol

 

[Nessie]

I would like that as a ballot paper and you put your X where you want the UK to be

 

[McHrozni]

the lack of democracy in the EU is my main reason to oppose my country joining the EU.

The larger the system the less direct democracy will be there. This is unfortunate and unavoidable. Switzerland does fine, because it's the exception to the rule. The same goes for Norway, Lichtenstein and others.

This is nothing new. San Marino is wealthier because it isn't a part of Italy. However I doubt anyone in their right mind that Italy as a whole was better off with a dozen city-states instead of a central government - or Germany for that matter.

It's a classical prisoners' dillema. Some people just refuse to serve anyone but themselves. This too is unfortunate and unavoidable.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Supranational_European_Bodies.png/500px-Supranational_European_Bodies.png[/qimg]

I would like that as a ballot paper and you put your X where you want the UK to be

You need to put a name on the blue part as well

McHrozni

 

[ddt]

You need to put a name on the blue part as well

McHrozni

"America". That's the option that the UK literally floats away from the European continental shelf over the Atlantic. Stepping out of the Council of Europe means you even don't consider yourself belonging to this continent. (all European states save the Vatican, which is observer, are member of the CoE).

 

[McHrozni]

"America". That's the option that the UK literally floats away from the European continental shelf over the Atlantic. Stepping out of the Council of Europe means you even don't consider yourself belonging to this continent. (all European states save the Vatican, which is observer, are member of the CoE).

That's an original idea

Would the US Constitution permit a state to have a queen and a PM instead of a governor?

McHrozni

 

[MikeG]

You think we'd go from the frying pan to the fire?

But joining NAFTA would be an interesting alternative.

 

[McHrozni]

You think we'd go from the frying pan to the fire?

Yes, I do

But joining NAFTA would be an interesting alternative.

Yeah. The "NA" part may be slightly problematic, but that could be arranged, I guess.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

The larger the system the less direct democracy will be there. This is unfortunate and unavoidable. Switzerland does fine, because it's the exception to the rule. The same goes for Norway, Lichtenstein and others.

This is nothing new. San Marino is wealthier because it isn't a part of Italy. However I doubt anyone in their right mind that Italy as a whole was better off with a dozen city-states instead of a central government - or Germany for that matter.

It's a classical prisoners' dillema. Some people just refuse to serve anyone but themselves. This too is unfortunate and unavoidable.

McHrozni

we have a Long history of not wanting to serve anyone, i love that.
but we do however love to work together with others to reach a common Goal.

 

[McHrozni]

we have a Long history of not wanting to serve anyone, i love that.

Yeah. Many don't realize that's an illusion. You don't want to serve anyone who isn't Swiss, as if a domestic rule is somehow necessarily better than a foreign one.

but we do however love to work together with others to reach a common Goal.

Yup. Europe needs more of that, that's for sure, and could learn from the Swiss.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

Yeah. Many don't realize that's an illusion. You don't want to serve anyone who isn't Swiss, as if a domestic rule is somehow necessarily better than a foreign one.



Yup. Europe needs more of that, that's for sure, and could learn from the Swiss.

McHrozni

i didn't say we don't serve anybody. we don't want to... thats a difference, and not wanting to, is certainly not an Illusion

we mostly don't wan't to Serve anyone, be they swiss or whatever.

Domestic rules are not necessarily better, but they are our rules. and mostly they fit to our Needs as they are our rules. central planning in brussel will hardly accomplish that nor will it take into considerations the Needs of a small Region in a small Country.

 

[MikeG]

....Yeah. The "NA" part may be slightly problematic, but that could be arranged, I guess. ....

It works OK in NATO. They wouldn't even have to change the stationery.

 

[McHrozni]

i didn't say we don't serve anybody. we don't want to... thats a difference, and not wanting to, is certainly not an Illusion

It's an illusion if you think you'd be significantly different off in EU

we mostly don't wan't to Serve anyone, be they swiss or whatever.

But since you have to serve someone in some way or another, it has to be Swiss

This is little to no different from what I said.

Domestic rules are not necessarily better, but they are our rules. and mostly they fit to our Needs as they are our rules. central planning in brussel will hardly accomplish that nor will it take into considerations the Needs of a small Region in a small Country.

Meh. Any (competent) ruler that depends on your support to retain power will try to fit your needs to the best of his ability. The ability may be limited by his own agenda as well, of course.

Brussels doesn't do much central planning. That's part of the problem. We could use more coordinated approaches from time to time.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

It works OK in NATO. They wouldn't even have to change the stationery.

True, although it is less of a stretch. I guess the "N" wouldn't be much of an issue.

McHrozni

 

[NWO Sentryman]

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Supranational_European_Bodies.png/500px-Supranational_European_Bodies.png[/qimg]

I would like that as a ballot paper and you put your X where you want the UK to be

Poland cannot into Euro

 

[Hlafordlaes]

The problem with the view that the EU should be a simple free trade organization is that this does not lead to a stable system.

In fact, to fix the problems that arise with free trade among EU member states, one needed the euro. Not that it doesn't introduce more problems itself.

When a group of trading partners decide to open their borders and reduce tariffs to 0, gaming starts.

There is the temptation to manipulate your currency to gain advantage, which is what happened until the exchange rate mechanism was put into place. This limited the maximum swings in rates to +/- 5% over an established base rate. This was the "snake in the tunnel."

This does not work in a world market in which those same currencies, subject to supply and demand pressures, may be valued by the market above or below the official, artificial rate targets. Keeping currencies within the exchange rate mechanism became a game between central banks and currency traders. And it locked in rates that over time did need to change more than the 5%.

So the time came to either eliminate the exchange rate mechanism altogether, which leaves no solution for a free trade block moving forward, or go to the euro.

To dream of a Common Market of gentlemanly trade among EU nations using national currencies is to dream of a return to a broken system. The choices today are (1) move forward (2) forget it (3) a reduced EU of countries with similar economies.

(3) would be better, with an initial euro zone of Benelux, Germany, France, and Austria, plus those Scandinavian countries interested. Southern and Eastern Europe should have been asked for another 20-50 years development before being allowed to join.

I do not think the UK should be part of the EU, or the euro at least, due to deep cultural factors.

 

[Dcdrac]

that deep cultural factor tosh again, if you even give the Uk's history even a brief glance the fact its been moulded by every historical tide that has swept across Europe is in an inescapable fact, there is nothing culturally unique about the UK, it is far more European than a lot of people pretend to believe, it is a myth to think that somehow the UK is a totally distinct cultural artefact, a comfort blanket at best.

 

[Giz]

that deep cultural factor tosh again, if you even give the Uk's history even a brief glance the fact its been moulded by every historical tide that has swept across Europe is in an inescapable fact, there is nothing culturally unique about the UK, it is far more European than a lot of people pretend to believe, it is a myth to think that somehow the UK is a totally distinct cultural artefact, a comfort blanket at best.

It has also had divergent political and legal traditions. While not "totally distinct" (where is?), there are significant differences.

 

[McHrozni]

(3) would be better, with an initial euro zone of Benelux, Germany, France, and Austria, plus those Scandinavian countries interested. Southern and Eastern Europe should have been asked for another 20-50 years development before being allowed to join.

There is nothing to suggest such approach would ever allow for Southern and Eastern Europe to join. If anything, I'd expect the difference to grow larger in this time.

The idea of allowing divergent economies under one roof was both to benefit the developed economies (access to cheap labor and larger markets) and underdeveloped ones (investment, development, European funds). If you limit the EU to solely developed countries you risk loosing both of those, and face the question "why?".

Furthermore, we have to realize that the goal of the EU is not to serve the European economies and economies alone. Economic integration was never a goal, it was means to an end - and that end was political integration, to make the most turbulent continent (at the time of creation) to become peaceful. Sure, changing that to service the economy first may be a realistic approach now, but changing it to what you suggest just invites to greater problems a generation down the line.

I do not think the UK should be part of the EU, or the euro at least, due to deep cultural factors.

Meh. What factors are those, exactly?

McHrozni