 |
| |
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Marcus
The armies of the EU nations combined are the 2nd most powerful military on earth. |
Funny, because I was JUST reading this before I read your post.
quote:
At this stage, the EU does not have the military capability of a great power. In fact, it does not have an independent, unified military capability at all. The defense of the EU members is currently taken care of by the individual members via national defense forces, by NATO under the collective defense guarantee outlined in the Washington Treaty (excluding Austria, Finland, Ireland, and Sweden), and by the Western European Union (WEU) for the ten EU countries that constitute its full membership. Previous attempts at forming a defense capability, outlined in Chapter 1, have not come to fruition. The bulk of this chapter, therefore, will examine the prospects for an EU defense capability. |
So in other words, the EU is only as strong as its weakest member. And thats WEAK!
http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/homepage_...s/chapter5.html
The US spends about 3% of its GDP on the military, and this is 3% of the worlds largest GDP (ie, a HUGE number of dollars). Most EU countries spend less than 1% of tiny tiny GDP's. So if the EU is second, which it might be, its second by a looooooooooooooooooooong shot.
quote:
The combined EU's GDP is the same size, and soon bigger (EU expanding) than that of the US.
Get your facts straight. |
How so? And remember, we're talking EU, NOT Europe the continent. The US is 20% of the worlds GDP, while the EU is 14%. The EU's GDP grew at less than 1% last year, while the US's grew by about 3-4%. This = US is bigger and growing faster. If this weren't the case, what would the impetus be for unification, since many here and in the academic world cite the reason for European integration as to create an alternative to US superpowerdom. And also, the combined EU purchasing power is about 9.5 trillion, while the US's is about 10.6, while the US has 270 million people and the EU has 370.
Spiffor: All your points make sense and are valid, but it seems to me like the major problems you are addressing are about harmonizing the governments of individual member states, but what I'm asking is WHY should a country go through all this trouble when the same ends could be achieved through economic and human rights agreements, rather than full blown poltical unification. Like, Canada and the US can have NAFTA and various other treaties, and we both benefit, but you don't see us creating the North American Union or something along those lines.
Last edited by JimmyCracksCorn on 20-04-2004 at 22:36
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Spiffor: All your points make sense and are valid, but it seems to me like the major problems you are addressing are about harmonizing the governments of individual member states, but what I'm asking is WHY should a country go through all this trouble when the same ends could be achieved through economic and human rights agreements, rather than full blown poltical unification. Like, Canada and the US can have NAFTA and various other treaties, and we both benefit, but you don't see us creating the North American Union or something along those lines. |
Things are pretty straightforward in NAFTA, because they are three actors, in which only one decides anyway. It is very different from our 15 member States (we'll be 25 in ten days), in which 6 have a roughly equal say.
The very reason EU is plagued by inefficient bureaucracy is that the power is held by individual governments that are constantly bargaining, instead of a Parliament deciding on issues on a ideological basis, and a central government-ish institution, deciding on the basis of the interest of the Union as a whole.
A EU decision takes several years from the original idea to the final application. Here's how it works. 1. The project is worked by the "Commission", which is our closest thing to a government. It takes a few months to give a project that is technically satisfying (so far, it's normal). 2. Then, the individual gornments take up to several years to haggle a text they all find a consensus on. The more governments the longer the bargainings, obviously. (the haggling arena is called the "Council") 3. Finally, the Parliament can agree or disagree with the text submitted by the Council (this legislative process can take several months). If the Parliament rejects the text, there is again a very long process to conciliate the opinion of the Parliament with which of the Council. Obviously, more individual governments means that the Council will take more and more time to find a consensus that is both satisfying to the Parliament and to the individual governments.
Solution:
Stop letting power in the hands of the slow, inefficient, non-accountable, and egoistically minded individual governments. Leave the decisions be taken by a much more efficient European Parliament, that is accountable to the population 
Of course, these decisions should only be the competences of the EU, not of national governments at home.
For comparison, in the US, imagine the president has no power of decision, only that of suggestion. Imagine the Parliament can only give a final agreement or disagreement, but decide nothing. Imagine all decisions are taken by envoys of each of the 50 States, that take years to haggle decisions. And tell me now if the most efficient solution is the intergovernmental haggling, or the situation the US is enjoying now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ElTigre
|
|
Germany
May 2003
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Spiffor: All your points make sense and are valid, but it seems to me like the major problems you are addressing are about harmonizing the governments of individual member states, but what I'm asking is WHY should a country go through all this trouble when the same ends could be achieved through economic and human rights agreements, rather than full blown poltical unification. Like, Canada and the US can have NAFTA and various other treaties, and we both benefit, but you don't see us creating the North American Union or something along those lines. |
Why do you equate the EU with a "full blown political unification"?! Does membership in the EU result in the dissolution of national parliaments / armies / sovereign territories?
The EU gradually and partially tweaks national sovereignty, but only in certain issue areas and only so far as all member states have agreed. Only the first pillar of the EU, the European Economic Union, is supranational, meaning that the member states have given up a part (!) of their sovereignty. The Common Foreign & Security Policy (CFSP, the second pillar) and JHA (Justice and Home Affairs (JHA, the third pillar) are strictly intergovernmental, meaning that states cooperate, but do not give up their sovereingty (every state has a veto power).
Basically, the EU is a complex accumulation of treaties and agreements. You already said that many of these "economic and human rights agreements" are useful and desirable. Why do you want to implement them by countless bilateral treaties instead by membership in a formal organization? It is so much easier to do this multilateral.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Stop letting power in the hands of the slow, inefficient, non-accountable, and egoistically minded individual governments. Leave the decisions be taken by a much more efficient European Parliament, that is accountable to the population
Of course, these decisions should only be the competences of the EU, not of national governments at home. |
So you think by removing some authority to a supranational institution is going to make it MORE accountable to the people? Interesting....
ElTigre: Its not full blown YET, but that is the ultimate goal for the future. But my point is how does it benefit individual members to give up ANY sovereignty at all. This has yet to be answered.
Think of my question this way. I'm a country looking to join a union. You are a salesman for the EU and you want me to join, while a saleman for the Banana Union wants me too. Why should I join the EU, give me a sales pitch that explicitly says why I will be better off for giving up certain national powers to you.
quote:
Basically, the EU is a complex accumulation of treaties and agreements. |
And in English, we call this a government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ElTigre
|
|
Germany
May 2003
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Only the first 60 pages of the final draft. It's mostly the unification of all our treaties in a single document. The only article that interests me is how the constitution will be amended. Sadly, I haven't found it. |
The constitution becomes effective if it is ratified by ALL member states. However, there is no deadline and it is unclear what happens if it is not ratified in all countries. The European Council would then decide what to do (second vote, changing the constitution,...).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
So you think by removing some authority to a supranational institution is going to make it MORE accountable to the people? Interesting.... |
Of course, if the supranational institutions are democratic.
Currently, the intergovernmental bargainings are completely anti-democratic: the bargainiers are bureaucrats, and they remain at their post even when the local voters oust a government. They are neither accountable to their national parliament, nor to the European one. Sometimes a national Parliament gives its opinion of an issue currently bargained, but such opinion is ignored by the bargainers, unless they strengthen their own aims.
We basically have a bunch of high civil servants taking all the important economic decisions for us, without any transparency, without any accountability.
I take a supranational Parliament over this intergovernmental shady bunch any day.
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
So you think by removing some authority to a supranational institution is going to make it MORE accountable to the people? Interesting.... |
If you have the choice between a city-wide mob, and a country-wide Parliament to take political decisions, which do you hold for more accountable? The local layer, or the democratic one?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Of course, if the supranational institutions are democratic.
Currently, the intergovernmental bargainings are completely anti-democratic: the bargainiers are bureaucrats, and they remain at their post even when the local voters oust a government. They are neither accountable to their national parliament, nor to the European one. Sometimes a national Parliament gives its opinion of an issue currently bargained, but such opinion is ignored by the bargainers, unless they strengthen their own aims.
We basically have a bunch of high civil servants taking all the important economic decisions for us, without any transparency, without any accountability.
I take a supranational Parliament over this intergovernmental shady bunch any day.
If you have the choice between a city-wide mob, and a country-wide Parliament to take political decisions, which do you hold for more accountable? The local layer, or the democratic one? |
Ok, so why not fix your own governments instead of trying to scrap them for a new one? And doesn't the the new EU government run the same risk of shadiness and corruption as the old national ones did? Afterall, its basically the same people running the show... just under different titles and in different cities.
quote:
I happen not to think we are in a Union of clients who only think of Europe as a money machine. I would never try to convince a country that has a client mentality. Let them go mess with the Banana Union instead. |
In an ideal world its not like that, but we all know what kind of world this is. The UK, or any other country, will not go further unless they feel they have something to gain... and this is not an unreasonable expectation. This is why prior to the EU, pro-EU representatives went to different European countries and hyped it up... otherwise where would the drive be to join?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ElTigre
|
|
Germany
May 2003
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Its not full blown YET, but that is the ultimate goal for the future.
|
Really? And that is written where? Integration is the general direction of the EU, yes, but that does not mean that a "full blown" political union is the ultimate aim. The EU may end up as something in between a federation of sovereign nations and a federal state. The point is that this process is neither inevitable nor will it happen without the consent of the participating states.
quote:
But my point is how does it benefit individual members to give up ANY sovereignty at all. This has yet to be answered.
Think of my question this way. I'm a country looking to join a union. You are a salesman for the EU and you want me to join, while a saleman for the Banana Union wants me too. Why should I join the EU, give me a sales pitch that explicitly says why I will be better off for giving up certain national powers to you.
|
1. Because economic integration cannot go beyond a certain point if it isn't backed up by the transfer of national sovereignty to central institutions. Example: The EURO and the European Central Bank.
2. Because unifying the European economic area (not just trade agreements, but matching company laws, intellectual and industrial property rights, interest rates, ...) fosters economic growth.
3. Because the EU can be stronger than the sum of its parts in the international arena. Example: The EU has a seat in the WTO, and not the member states, giving Europe perhaps less leverage than the US, but more than Japan. However, the EU can only use this leverage if the bonds between the member states cannot be loosened. Supranational integration prevents disunity and frictions. ( I know, I know: there are still countless conflicts within the EU at the moment...)
quote:
And in English, we call this a government.
|
The UN is an accumulation of treaties and agreements, too. Is it a government?
My dictionary tells me that there is a difference between linkage / interweavement / integration and unification.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-04-2004 14:54
|