EU, EU, EU - out, out, out

[Dcdrac]

To me its sheer fantasy for the UK to be out of the EU, it would be an instant loss of any influence at all.

The UK does not have the economic nor industrial clout on its own to have any political clout, clinging to the past does not serve the UK well at all.

and pretending that the UK has somehow developed on its own without any influence from the rest of Europe is delusional.

 

[Giz]

To me its sheer fantasy for the UK to be out of the EU, it would be an instant loss of any influence at all.

The UK does not have the economic nor industrial clout on its own to have any political clout, clinging to the past does not serve the UK well at all.

and pretending that the UK has somehow developed on its own without any influence from the rest of Europe is delusional.

Clearly the UK would be lost without a benevolent Franco-German axis to look after their interests.

And it might be more accurate to say that Europe developed ok thanks to the UK

 

[NWO Sentryman]

To me its sheer fantasy for the UK to be out of the EU, it would be an instant loss of any influence at all.

The UK does not have the economic nor industrial clout on its own to have any political clout, clinging to the past does not serve the UK well at all.

and pretending that the UK has somehow developed on its own without any influence from the rest of Europe is delusional.

Ok, confidence in the institutions of the European Union is non-existent, the economic crisis is getting worse, the institutions themselves are dysfunctional, and france and Germany, the two drivers behind this project, are turning against each other.

Why should the UK jump on a sinking ship?

 

[spin0]

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

Well, if you have a new vote, whatever you guys vote over there, I for one want to have my country at the core as would the majority of my countrymen.

 

[spin0]

And it might be more accurate to say that Europe developed ok thanks to the UK

Gee, thanks. What was the purpose of your Murmansk Legion again?

It's not like you were allies with the very forces that conquered and imposed their oppressive regimes upon most of the Europe.

 

[Giz]

It's not like you were allies with the very forces that conquered and imposed their oppressive regimes upon most of the Europe.

Are you complaining that we decided that Stalin was less of an immediate world threat than Hitler? (It wasn't that we liked it).

Churchill (on the invasion of the USSR by Nazi Germany):
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

 

[spin0]

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

Not that I hope your country joining, but could you please elaborate on that?

Council of the European Union is the place where you send YOUR chosen leader. Vote for party or person, gets to be prime minister, leads your country, represents it internationally. Nothing undemocratic in that.

Each member country has a representative in the European Commission. National parliaments or goverments propose the candidates. Each member has been selected of the candidates of each country, and have been accepted by national governments or parliaments. Nothing undemocratic in that.

Then there's the European Parliament. With its >750 members each country has representatives there forming alliances and voting blocks with other members. It's the biggest parliament in Europe, decades ago it was though to be a mere discussion forum but EP has gained some real power in EU especially after the Lissabon Treaty.

I am certain we could have more democracy within EU. One part of that would be to give more power to directly elected organs like EP as traditionally especially the Council and to some extent even the Commission have been about promomoting national interests.

That would necessarily mean giving more power to the European Parliament, and less to the organs which traditionally have been the battlegrounds for national interests like the Council.

Many people who opionate that EU should have more democracy also opionate that countries should have more sovereignity (as if they didn't have that already). Usually they do not further elaborate on that as that would be revealing: their two goals are opposite of each other. You cannot have more democracy in EU without giving more power to the democratic organs of the EU.

Personally I'm all set for it. I do hope to see more power transferred to the European Parliament, but I realize it's a slow process.

 

[Humes fork]

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

How would that happen? Those with the power to do so benefit from the current corrupt system.

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

It's all about incentive. It shows that the EU isn't "inevitable" or whatever our politicians like to say.

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.

Yeah, because the EU works so well.

So if you want to reduce your own membership, then by all means go ahead.
Look, here's the smörgåsbord:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Supranational_European_Bodies.png/500px-Supranational_European_Bodies.png[/qimg]

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.

True, but the EU we joined wasn't the imminent superstate that Hollande recently called for.

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

See above.

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.

Yes, and you see, that's what needed. No bloated buarocracy needed like EU.

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.

I don't think a closer Nordic union was even on the agenda since the heydays of Scandinavism. You see, it wasn't needed.

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.

Not quite the same thing. We don't use half our budget for useless agricultural subsidies.

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".

The EU has changed quite a lot recently. Again, Hollande has called for a superstate within two years. Not what was voted for in 1994.

 

[L.Y.S.]

As an American I know very little about the EU, so I won't get my feet too wet in this conversation. However, I am curious, what is wrong with a European federation? It seems like the next most logical step. Why not create a system of federalism which prohibits the central government from becoming too large?

 

[spin0]

Are you complaining that we decided that Stalin was less of an immediate world threat than Hitler? (It wasn't that we liked it).

My question to you referred to the times when Stalin still was small potatos.

 

[spin0]

As an American I know very little about the EU, so I won't get my feet too wet in this conversation. However, I am curious, what is wrong with a European federation? It seems like the next most logical step. Why not create a system of federalism which prohibits the central government from becoming too large?

A very good question.

But you have to see we're not discussing an actual European federation here. For some just about any power given to the EU legislative organs to enforce the treaties that member countries have signed would be federalization. There's a lot of play with semantics going around there.

And like I said I do support further integration which makes me a "federalist". But I'm not dreaming of a European federation, in fact I might even oppose depending on what's it about if such is actually proposed.

For me the next logical step is further integration, which means:

* Giving more power to democratic EU organs like the European Parliament. This would mean taking power away from other EU organs like the Commission and the Council. This is difficult because it would mean taking power from the organs which are the biggest battlegrounds for national interests (especially the Council) and giving it to a paneuropean democratic organ. This is also why I don't understand the claims that "EU lacks democracy, therefore more sovereignity", to me it would be the other way around.

* Further development of the Eurozone. There are many ideas going around here. At the current situation I'm very skeptical for most of those. I oppose Eurobonds and such as do very many others. Banking Union is the current next step under discussion. Progress will be slow, difficult, but necessary.

* And then some other important issues like science funding, building critical infrastructure, addressing the youth unemployment in some countries, developing our new members, further expansion, etc.. etc..

 

[Humes fork]

As an American I know very little about the EU, so I won't get my feet too wet in this conversation. However, I am curious, what is wrong with a European federation? It seems like the next most logical step. Why not create a system of federalism which prohibits the central government from becoming too large?

It's not really possible, as the recent mess should illustrate. Europe is simply too heterogenous for that to be feasible in the foreseeable future.

 

[spin0]

How would that happen? Those with the power to do so benefit from the current corrupt system.

And that's why we all still live under Feodalism.

It's all about incentive. It shows that the EU isn't "inevitable" or whatever our politicians like to say.

In Sweden you voted for membership in a referendum. It was not "inevitable" as a quick peek to your west to Norway would confirm. You guys chose to join. Now you have. What Iceland decides is their decision, not yours Sweden.

Yeah, because the EU works so well.

You having no arguments makes sense, as what I said is hard to argue against:
as one 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, there's absolutely no reason to reduce the EU just to those. Which is true.

True, but the EU we joined wasn't the imminent superstate that Hollande recently called for.

Well, the EU isn't a superstate, and not "the imminent superstate" despite whatever Hollande has said. Now I don't know what Hollande has actually said or whether you're just distorting his words, but I do think you're putting waaaay too much weight on it.

See above.

Yep, like I said you guys voted for it.

Yes, and you see, that's what needed. No bloated buarocracy needed like EU.

And as your next thing you say it wasn't needed:

I don't think a closer Nordic union was even on the agenda since the heydays of Scandinavism. You see, it wasn't needed.

Yes, I see, like I already wrote, you see. I'm glad I don't seriously have to ask you to make up your mind.

Not quite the same thing. We don't use half our budget for useless agricultural subsidies.

Despite the shifted goalposts Good for you. Neither does the EU.

The EU has changed quite a lot recently. Again, Hollande has called for a superstate within two years. Not what was voted for in 1994.

ZOMG! Hollande has said that? The horror. The horror. Within two years there will be a "superstate" because Hollande has said something?
Please do get real.

 

[spin0]

It's not really possible, as the recent mess should illustrate. Europe is simply too heterogenous for that to be feasible in the foreseeable future.

 

[spin0]

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.

Not a Greek here with the fancy arithmesticks and stuff but in my math 48% < 52%.

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

Yeah, man you really did **** that up.

 

[spin0]

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.

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.

Very true.

 

[GlennB]

Not a Greek here with the fancy arithmesticks and stuff but in my math 48% < 52%.

It certainly is, but what point are you trying to make?

 

[spin0]

It certainly is, but what point are you trying to make?

That apparently the majority of Greeks were not opposed to the membership at the time.

 

[Eddie Dane]

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.

My feelings are also along these lines.

I never see us standing behind one president, political unity is a not attainable. Shame, we'll never have the punching power of the USA, but will resemble the UN in our decision making. Slow and laborious.

But focus on trade and much more is possible. Suddenly we can let Turkey in without fearing that it will become the head of the Frankenstein-state.

 

[DC]

Not that I hope your country joining, but could you please elaborate on that?

Council of the European Union is the place where you send YOUR chosen leader. Vote for party or person, gets to be prime minister, leads your country, represents it internationally. Nothing undemocratic in that.

Each member country has a representative in the European Commission. National parliaments or goverments propose the candidates. Each member has been selected of the candidates of each country, and have been accepted by national governments or parliaments. Nothing undemocratic in that.

Then there's the European Parliament. With its >750 members each country has representatives there forming alliances and voting blocks with other members. It's the biggest parliament in Europe, decades ago it was though to be a mere discussion forum but EP has gained some real power in EU especially after the Lissabon Treaty.

I am certain we could have more democracy within EU. One part of that would be to give more power to directly elected organs like EP as traditionally especially the Council and to some extent even the Commission have been about promomoting national interests.

That would necessarily mean giving more power to the European Parliament, and less to the organs which traditionally have been the battlegrounds for national interests like the Council.

Many people who opionate that EU should have more democracy also opionate that countries should have more sovereignity (as if they didn't have that already). Usually they do not further elaborate on that as that would be revealing: their two goals are opposite of each other. You cannot have more democracy in EU without giving more power to the democratic organs of the EU.

Personally I'm all set for it. I do hope to see more power transferred to the European Parliament, but I realize it's a slow process.

very simple, lack of direct Democracy is a lack of Democracy for me. this is why i regard the Swiss confederation incompatible with the EU.