EU, EU, EU - out, out, out

[spin0]

Evidently the EU is a perfect institution, functioning in just the way that all the populace of the continent would desire, not wasting a single Euro, and benefiting the whole wide world.

I disagree.

I agree with David Cameron on this: EU needs reforms. And most everybody agrees that EU needs reforms, there is no question about that. The question is how to go about it. What, when and how?

UK is one of the most powerful and influential nations in EU with Germany, France and Italy. And as such UK has put a lot of work and effort over the last decades to build the EU as we know it. And "a lot" is a understatement there.

And, I have to say, as European citizen I am grateful for that work. Hell, I would be even if my country wasn't in the EU with you guys. Certainly it has not been perfect, but then again with such complex issues perfect is often the enemy of good. And I do deeply respect UK and the work and sacrifices it has done to shape and build the post-WWII and post-coldwar Europe. Needless to say the same sentiment goes with Germany, France, Italy and others.

What I don't understand is this:
After all the decades of hard work UK has done, and all the things she has achieved for the benefit of Europe and of UK as one of the most powerful nations in EU, you Mike - and according to the polls indeed the majority of the people of UK - want to repeal those achievements on your part and to throw away all that power and influence.
It doesn't make much sense. Why do that?

So, do I waste an hour of my life on replying to someone who is incapable of understanding what I have said in clear and simple terms, and who has taken quite a sneering tone, or do I just forget it and move on, knowing that any response would produce more condescension and sneering?
Hmmmmm, let me see......

When I described UK as inventive, resourceful and smart nation there's absolutely no sneering there. UK has done so much for the EU, and traditionally has brought good points and stances for EU's further developments. And like I said: I do hope UK chooses to stay with us, but it's their choice and no hard feelings if decides otherwise.

Hell, even if Finland had to pay UK that ~150 million €/year to support UK's membership forever, I'd still support our membership as I see the much larger benefits in the big picture of being in the EU. But as much as I do like UK, I cannot say I'd be happy paying it on a continuous basis, and I'd like to see it does get phased out as was the original idea of UK's special membership rebate.

So if you found sneering tones in my correspondence to you, it is merely aimed to the manner you chose to conduct your part of the discussion: making broad claims without providing any evidence or even further quantifications when asked for, carefully avoiding questions directed at you concerning your positions (some even contradictional), and arguably moving goalposts when suitable - in a forum of skepticism and critical thinking.

 

[Mojo]

I am anything but xenophobic, and am a complete Europhile.........but I question the wisdom of tying ourselves to the apron strings of a protectionist organisation with a failing currency, chronically weak economies and high unemployment, and where subsidies for agriculture and expensive social programmes hugely harm international competitiveness. We have a trade deficit with Europe, and we also have an expensive extra and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and governance as a result of our membership.

It's always worth taking any statement that starts "I'm not [whatever], but..." with a pinch of salt.

 

[Mojo]

Evidently the EU is a perfect institution, functioning in just the way that all the populace of the continent would desire, not wasting a single Euro, and benefiting the whole wide world.

Evidently this is a strawman argument.

So, do I waste an hour of my life on replying to someone who is incapable of understanding what I have said in clear and simple terms...

 

[MikeG]

Evidently this is a strawman argument.

No. It was sarcasm.

 

[Peephole]

I am anything but xenophobic, and am a complete Europhile.........but I question the wisdom of tying ourselves to the apron strings of a protectionist organisation with a failing currency

The point is a free trade area with no protectionism.

Also, the UK isn't part of the Eurozone.

agriculture and expensive social programmes hugely harm international competitiveness.

What social programmes?

 

[MikeG]

The point is a free trade area with no protectionism.

Everyone who has commented on this has missed the point. Europe has no internal barriers, but has some pretty high external ones.

What social programmes?

The European Regional Development Fund. My short-hand was possibly not perfect. Flog me. But the principle is that the richer nations pay for big employment schemes in poorer countries. From Wiki:

Objective convergence
Modernising and diversifying economic structures
Creating sustainable jobsStimulating economic growth
Attention to urban, remote, mountainous, sparsely populated, and the outermost regions
Regional competitiveness and employmentInnovation and knowledge economy (e.g., research and technological development, innovation and entrepreneurship, financial engineering)
Environment and risk prevention (e.g., cleaning up polluted areas, energy efficiency, clean urban public transport, risk prevention plans)
Access to transport and telecommunications
Territorial cooperation
Cross-border economic, social, and environmental activities
Transnational cooperation, including bilateral cooperation between maritime regions
Inter-regional cooperation, including networking and exchange of experiences between regional and local authorities

 

[spin0]

Everyone who has commented on this has missed the point. Europe has no internal barriers, but has some pretty high external ones.

Good to hear you actually do recognize the general lack of internal barries in the EU, as we do have a common market of 500 million people - an exceptional achievement when you look at Europe's history I should say.

And regarding to your claim of external barriers, EU has reached and is in the process of negotiating further Free Trade Agreements with many countries, of which I already provided examples.

So please do not further pretend your point has been missed or ignored, when it has been already specifically addressed.

It's not like any of this information is hard to come by, but you can read it on for example European Commission's website: The EU's free trade agreements – where are we? (28 trade agreements already in force, 9 more finished yet to enter into force, 9 trade negotiations under way and several more trade and development negotiations (EPAs) ongoing)

Then you specifically raised the point of lack of agreements with "Africans". EU already has agreements in place with some African countries (for example South Africa), and is in the process of negotiating more deals (for example with ACP). And as I already said I agree with that and there's reasons to rid of those barries down the road.

I support that. So how about you: Do you support EU negotiating free trade agreements?

The European Regional Development Fund. My short-hand was possibly not perfect. Flog me.

I don't think anyone should be flogged for being ignorant or even unable to define what they're talking about, even when asked. But I did already ask you to further define and to provide support for your vague claims, which questions you chose to simply ignore! It does raise the question: do you actually know much of what you're talking about?

But the principle is that the richer nations pay for big employment schemes in poorer countries.
From Wiki:

No, your highlights do not prove your claim. And regarding to your claims you already have some pertinent questions which you have ignored:

You wrote: "expensive social programmes hugely harm international competitiveness". I honestly do not get your meaning there. Could you please elaborate on that. What are these "expensive social programmes"? How expensive are they? Could you please quantify how "hugely" they harm our competitiveness?

Please do address them instead of avoiding, so there could be further discussion regarding your points if they actually have any factual basis to be discussed.

 

[spin0]

No. It was sarcasm.

And very smart too.

 

[El Greco]

EU, in its current form, is doomed for a very simple reason: It consists of nations that couldn't care less about each other, with more evident the chasm between North and South. To a large degree, Southern Europeans are much more positively predisposed towards Americans or Japanese than they are towards North Europeans. And vice-versa. Probably the same happens with the British and everyone else in the continent as well, with the common language between USA and UK being an extra factor here. A union (cultural, financial, social) comes natural only when people already feel close to each other. Probably TV networks in Europe dedicate no more time to news about other EU countries than to news about any other country in the world (except of course when those news are of financial nature and affect the network's country as well).

All in all, geographical proximity is an inadequate reason for a union. Not only that, but EU has managed to widen the gap between North and South rather than close it.

 

[MikeG]

......I don't think anyone should be flogged for being ignorant or even unable to define what they're talking about......

....So, do I waste an hour of my life on replying to someone who ............has taken quite a sneering tone, .......knowing that any response would produce more condescension and sneering?

No, I don't.

But for others who may have an interest in the effect of EU trade barriers on Africa:

A report on EU barriers to trade with with Africa.

An ODI report on EU trade reforms making the situation worse, not better.

A Zambian delegate at a recent ACP-EU conference on trade.

 

[Humes fork]

Fixing Europe into a modern outward-looking trading organisation with low tariffs and more national sovereignty could help me change my mind, but there is no way that David Cameron's renogotiations will achieve anything like that. Therefore, as things stand, I am in the out-of-Europe camp.

You speak for me...

The idea of creating a European federation is simply not doable. It's to heterogenous. And EU as it stands simply can't be reformed, it won't happen.

Exit is the best option. And there is hope. The entrance of Iceland looks like it gets put on hold since they recently voted for parties opposed to the EU, and the possibly upcoming British vote looks promising.

What should the EU be? It should be about free trade and free movement only. We don't need a common parliament, no CAP, no silly anthem and certainly not a common currency. The countries should be left to manage their own affairs as long as they don't violate human rights. But again, the powers that be won't cut it down to this. Due to this, I'd like for Sweden to leave the EU, the sooner the better.

The Nordic countries have had open borders, free trade and free movement between each other for decades. We don't have a Nordic parliament, no bloated bueorocracy, no cesspit corruption like the EU.

 

[Humes fork]

All in all, geographical proximity is an inadequate reason for a union. Not only that, but EU has managed to widen the gap between North and South rather than close it.

Indeed. I can very well imagine military coups taking place in Greece and Spain in the current situation.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

And to add to that, the atrocious handling of the Euro crisis has destroyed any confidence I had in the EU as an institution. And I don't doubt for a second a lot of people are doubting the EU because of this crisis. This lack of legitimacy is anathema to the EU, and if it is to survive and prosper, it has to restore confidence and legitimacy in its institutions. How? I don't know the answer to that one.

 

[Humes fork]

I am convinced that too many of the UK population will be swayed by promises of a return of the holiday duty free and won't appreciate the economic damage that an EU exit may bring about.

As we all know, Norway and Switzerland are economic ruins...

 

[spin0]

You speak for me...
The idea of creating a European federation is simply not doable. It's to heterogenous. And EU as it stands simply can't be reformed, it won't happen.

I see no reason as to why EU couldn't be reformed.

Exit is the best option. And there is hope. The entrance of Iceland looks like it gets put on hold since they recently voted for parties opposed to the EU, and the possibly upcoming British vote looks promising.

I think Iceland and (possibly) UK are voting for themselves, not for Sweden.

What should the EU be? It should be about free trade and free movement only.

There's absolutely no reason to reduce the EU just to those. You already can be a member of the EFTA, or European Economic Area (free trade) and Schengen area (free movement) without being a member of the EU.

So if you want to reduce your own membership, then by all means go ahead.
Look, here's the smörgåsbord:

It is silly to propose that EU should be something less just because you want something less for yourself. Use that smörgåsbord and choose what it is you actually want.

And if none of the options work for you then by all means go and form your own new international whatever it is. If it's any good others might join, and who knows if eventually even the EU.

We don't need a common parliament, no CAP, no silly anthem and certainly not a common currency. The countries should be left to manage their own affairs as long as they don't violate human rights. But again, the powers that be won't cut it down to this. Due to this, I'd like for Sweden to leave the EU, the sooner the better.

Last I heard you guys in Sweden voted for EU membership in a refendum. Awful how those powers that be prevented your schemes.

The Nordic countries have had open borders,

Yeah, has worked well.

free trade

No.
Was no free trade, and no "Nordic Free Trade Area" or "Nordic Common Market" or such. But we've had bilatelar trade agreements and such if that's what you're referring to.

and free movement between each other for decades.

You already said that, so I'll repeat: Yeah, has worked well.

Your list amounts to: We've had free movement between Nordic countries.
Which is nice. It's nice because everybody loves the Nordic Countries, especially the Nordics, and it's nice to move between them. From Finland to Sweden to Norway to Iceland to Denmark. Seriously, who could ask for anything more?

Besides: Border controls between Nordic countries stopped only after we all signed the Schengen Treaty.

We don't have a Nordic parliament,

No. We have never needed that because the Nordic Council has always been pretty much a discussion forum without any real power. Most of the stuff we've had going between us has been easily handled with bilateral treaties or such. There never was need for further supranordic organs, but a Nordic Parliament would have been the next step. That never happened, and the window of opportunity for a Nordic Union closed long ago.

no bloated bueorocracy,

Have you actually compared the size of Sweden's public sector to the EU average?
Just saying man, not just throwing a din mor here.

no cesspit corruption like the EU.

I hear you bro, compared to us Nordics pretty much any other country in Europe and indeed in this ************* world is a cesspit of corruption.
You got that right. We rule! :nordic brofist:


Generally speaking the problem with the argument that "the EU should not be EU, it should be less than EU, because EU baaad" is that those lesser other options do already exist for any country, voters just did not choose them but chose to join the EU. And if "Eu baaad" then the rational solution is not "dissolve EU" but "improve EU".

 

[MikeG]

.....those lesser other options do already exist for any country, voters just did not choose them .........

Twaddle. Utter twaddle.

EU membership (and the terms thereof) are not something we have ever had a vote on. Our political class foisted it upon us.

Democracy in the EU is a curious beast. If the populace vote incorrectly in referenda, the politicians simply repeat the voting process until they get the result they want. That isn't exactly taking account of the wishes of the populace, is it? And the idea that Brits voted for the current arrangement is somewhere between ridiculous and outright lying.

 

[McHrozni]

That's the real problem. The Bureacrats in Brussels really do seem to fufill the Euro Skeptics worst accusation...that they want to become the surpreme governing power in Europe, with national governments being reduced to bureaucratic convienences.That is just not going to sell in a lot of European countries.

I, for one, fail to see this as an issue. Yes, it is getting closer to truth. Wasn't this the intent all along? What's the downside, exactly? Loss of national sovereignty gets replaced by sovereignty over an international entity. Ironically voters from smaller nations would experience a net gain in power. In addition, I can name a few countries that would benefit from loosing some sovereignty.

And the accusation that the EU is really ran by France and Germany for the benefit of France and Germany is gaining steam also.

What euro skeptics (and people who fall for them) fail to realize is that this is not conditioned by the EU. It may actually be moderated by membership. European economies are interlinked and dominated by France and Germany, due to their sheer size, economic and scientific power. This was the case at least 75 years before EU came into existence.
EU enables the rest to benefit from them as well. Yes, it also benefits France and Germany, which I really don't have a problem with.

McHrozni

 

[El Greco]

EU membership (and the terms thereof) are not something we have ever had a vote on. Our political class foisted it upon us.

Here in Greece people had brought to power a political party that its main position was we should get OUT of the EU. That was in 1981, soon after we joined. That party got a 48%, which is the highest percentage a political party has received in something like 50 years.

Of course, as soon as they became government they magically forgot everything about it.

Our debt to gdp ratio back then was 22%...

 

[MikeG]

The Bureacrats in Brussels really do seem to fufill the Euro Skeptics worst accusation...that they want to become the surpreme governing power in Europe, with national governments being reduced to bureaucratic convienences.........

I, for one, fail to see this as an issue. Yes, it is getting closer to truth. Wasn't this the intent all along? What's the downside, exactly? ........

Really? You can't see the problem?

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

 

[DC]

As we all know, Norway and Switzerland are economic ruins...

but we never exited the EU