 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
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. |
Not exactly.
Those who bargain are civil servants, who are not accountable. Those who decide in a Parliament are politicians, and we the people can throw the rascals out if needed.
Besides, a haggling session is very different than a decision in a Parliament. Haggling requires many, many adjustments to one's opinion, and ton one's decisions. When you haggle, you can't have a democratic process, simply because you'd need a democratic advice every day or so (as the situation changes, and other countries change their bids - the more countries the more complex). And democratic institutions are unable to provide so many opinions so quickly, especially as there are tons of simultaneous haggling sessions occuring for various issues.
As such, a decisional process based on haggling is bound to be non-democratic. A decisional process based on ideological stance can be democratic, whether it is local, national, or supranational.
quote:
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? |
And it didn't happen. The EEC was created by 6 countries whose main objective was to definitely end all wars between each other. After the double trauma of WW1 and WW2, the founding fathers envisioned an everlasting peace that could occur because of real, day-to-day economic interactions.
The EEC happened to be very dynamic, with quickly-growing countries (Germany, France, Italy and Benelux all had a great prosperity between WW2 and the middle of the 70's).
In the meantime, the Brits felt left out of this prosperity, and insisted by themselves to join the EU. It's not like we tried hard to have them in. Quite the contrary, as De Gaulle rejected the British adhesion outright. We didn't have to sell the European Idea to former dictatorships Greece, Spain and Portugal either. And most countries from Eastern Europe wanted badly in, as we stalled their entry for more than ten years.
The only ones to whom we advertize are Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, because they're rich countries. All the current members didn't need any advertisement to join: THEY were the ones asking in. Even today, there are many countries asking in that we reject: Romania and Bulgaria (to be in in the next decade), Turkey, Croatia, Israel, even Morocco. I don't think we have tried to "hype up" the EU to these countries, seeing that we don't want them in 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
I await it too. It will be a painful time, where jingoism will run galore, especially in our most backward countries. But I expect the debate not to turn as an all-out war, unlike in the US. |
I expect that if it doesn't, it'll come very close. Eventually, some issue will come up with the countries seperated into two camps, they'll feel strongly about it, and one will win. The camp that lost will say "we've had enough, we're leaving". Either you'll manage to convince them to come back (in which case, you're just postponing it, because they'll be bitter), you'll let them leave (which destroys the entire concept of a federal government, and basically results in the destruction of the EU), or you'll go to war. Given the differences between the nations now, light-years greater than the differences between the States every were, I don't see national militaries disappearing. The only thing I can see that would stop this without a war as bad as the Civil War was for us would be the intervention of a foreign power, which might not even solve the problem (it may just postpone it).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:35
|
|
1. The UK has to be part of the Common Market. Too much of their trade is with the Continent, especially the expanded EU. Maybe someday when services are larger relative to goods in trade, this might change, but for now NAFTA isnt an alternative.
2. For UK the question is whether to be inside the EU and participate in its politics, or stay outside and let key decisions be made that impact the EU economy without British input.
3. IF the UK should decide to stay in common market only, I cant see the EU turning that down. Free trade with UK is of benefit to EU states and industries, as well as UK. Would they really push the UK out of the common market out of spite???
4. It is natural for the UK to be opposed to a high speed Europe, since the comination of 1 and 2 means that staying out really wont be much of an option for them. In opposing it they are merely following their national interest. Which, AFAIK, the Continental states are still doing, at this point.
5. It does not seem right to me for there to be resentment of the UK for having a higher degree of nationalism than the Continental states. Their history, and their current options in the world are different. Its fine if SOME (though clearly not ALL) continental europeans have decided that Euronationalism is preferable to traditional nationalism - I would suggest that traditional nationalism has a long history, and in the UK and US, and even in many parts of continental Europe at some times, has been strongly associated with democracy and progress. Maybe the EU alternative will prove superior, maybe it wont. Why should the UK be villified if it chooses differently?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
Exactly, because they aren't laws. They're treaties. A law, by definition, cannot be "opted out of". It is an absolute rule, ultimately backed up by force. |
They are laws.
There are several treaties (a few of them), declaring Member States adhere to the EU, and what competences they give up to the EU. In the EU domain, Member States are bound to follow the law.
For example, there is a law about having a fair competition when offering a public market (such as the construction of a stadium). If the country building the stadium doesn't give an equal opportunity to all European contractors, whatever their country of origin, then this country can be fined by the European Court of Justice. The only way to avoid the fine is to pull out of the EU altogether, you can not "opt out" on this single aspect.
There are plenty of laws states are bound to follow, unless they leave the EU (well, the complete lack of transparency make sit possible for the states to find shady arrangements). The states have about as much choice in following the law as myself: if I don't want to follow the French law, I can as well reject my French nationality 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Kucinich:
You understate how much we Europeans loathe war. |
Your history shows your loathing quite well 
Seriously, though, this far in the future you could have "forgotten the horrors of war" - in fact, I don't see how you would avoid this, short of a war 
quote:
If things get to the point of two sides in complete disagreement, it is clear both sides will agree to disagree, and will divorce with many mishaps, albeit non violent ones. It will result in a smaller European federation, but this is a price pretty much any European has no problem to pay if it can avoid a war. The reason we built the EU is the first place is because we don't want to have war at home ever again. This principle won't be forgotten anytime soon. |
If you stick with that, then the EU will dissolve. You'll come to the point where some members will secede, and if you let them, the remaining member nations no longer have any reason to obey the central government.
quote:
Besides, the EU has taught us to disagree. See how much I ***** about British policies (and about the nationalism of these ****ing Rosbifs). And see how much the average Polytubbie *****es about the average French farmer, or about the French-German despots. Those are only a display of the many disagreements underlying the EU.
Yet, nobody even thinks of going at war against the others, even when emotions go high. That's because we have suffered from enough wars on our soil to not even consider it a solution, and to consider it always the worst possible situation. |
The war wouldn't be over the issue, it would be over the secession. Just like the American Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about States' rights - slavery was the particular issue, but the underlying cause.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
They are laws. |
Are they backed up by force? Remember, a rule, not backed up by force, is only a suggestion.
quote:
There are several treaties (a few of them), declaring Member States adhere to the EU, and what competences they give up to the EU. In the EU domain, Member States are bound to follow the law. |
Again, are they compelled? In theory, the States were bound to give whatever sum of money Congress requested under the Articles of Confederation, but Congress had no power to enforce this, so it wasn't in any real sense a law.
quote:
For example, there is a law about having a fair competition when offering a public market (such as the construction of a stadium). If the country building the stadium doesn't give an equal opportunity to all European contractors, whatever their country of origin, then this country can be fined by the European Court of Justice. The only way to avoid the fine is to pull out of the EU altogether, you can not "opt out" on this single aspect. |
Leaving is a way of "opting out". All you are saying is that they offer a nice set of benefits if you play along. That's no more than any other treaty between two countries.
quote:
There are plenty of laws states are bound to follow, unless they leave the EU (well, the complete lack of transparency make sit possible for the states to find shady arrangements). The states have about as much choice in following the law as myself: if I don't want to follow the French law, I can as well reject my French nationality |
Does the EU have the power to prevent countries from leaving? The US has the power to prevent people from leaving. Every country does. They usually don't exercise it. My point is that sovereignty lies firmly with the member nations, not in the EU.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
3. IF the UK should decide to stay in common market only, I cant see the EU turning that down. Free trade with UK is of benefit to EU states and industries, as well as UK. Would they really push the UK out of the common market out of spite??? |
No chance. The ones at the helm are civil servants concerned with money, not ideology. They'll go for the situation where their country benefits the most, regardless of emotion. Besides, not many people are emotional when it comes to Europe, except nationalists, and the very few hardcore Europeans to whom I belong.
quote:
5. It does not seem right to me for there to be resentment of the UK for having a higher degree of nationalism than the Continental states. Their history, and their current options in the world are different. Its fine if SOME (though clearly not ALL) continental europeans have decided that Euronationalism is preferable to traditional nationalism - I would suggest that traditional nationalism has a long history, and in the UK and US, and even in many parts of continental Europe at some times, has been strongly associated with democracy and progress. Maybe the EU alternative will prove superior, maybe it wont. Why should the UK be villified if it chooses differently? |
I villify whomever I want, and the Rosbifs are our enemies since more than a millenium
More seriously, I would have no problem with the British policy if they really took their ball and went home, as they seem prone to be. I have no problem with Britain being a member of the common market, and leave us alone with the rest.
My main beef is that the Brits seem to enjoy stalling the progress of us all while they procrastinate. This is the reason I strongly favor a two-speed Europe: let the nationalist mercantiles remain in the common market they enjoy, and let the other countries integrate however they want. And don't let the former slow the progresses of the other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
If you stick with that, then the EU will dissolve. You'll come to the point where some members will secede, and if you let them, the remaining member nations no longer have any reason to obey the central government. |
quote:
My point is that sovereignty lies firmly with the member nations, not in the EU. |
Yes, and your point precisely contradicts the above. In the current EU, sovereignity firmly lies with the member states, not the supranational level. The member states have agreed to be members in an organization to whom they grant competences, even the competence of punishing them when they misbehave (fines can be quite hefty).
And this is why a war will not happen: we still are a bunch of countries that bargain with each other. If we want to go further, we will decide this progression the same way: by haggling with each other.
As such the position of each country will be made clear before there is a central government that makes demands. This is why the situation of the EU is very different from the situation of the pre-civil-war US.
The idea of a two-speed EU is progressing fast after the failure of the constitution talks. The British referendum, if it ends up with a NO, will only reinforce the growing idea that we Europeans want different things, and that we should agree to disagree.
So far, the EU is barely more than an integrated economic zone. There is no European army worthy to speak of, there is no European police and so on. As such, member States don't remain in the EU out of fear, but either for ideological reasons (a great many Europeans still think the EU is a good idea, if only for the peace it provides, even though they may despise the anti-democratic decisions, or the concessions made to other countries), or for economical interest.
As such, there is no reason at all to go at war for a matter as trivial as who remains and who leaves. Those who wish to have a political integration will do so. Those who wish not to have it will probably opt out of it. And everything will be fine, after some rough words. That's the EU way.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-04-2004 03:04
|