The European Union

[regwec]

Since the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU has been set on a course towards supra-national statehood. Already, it has control of member states' foreign policies, it issues and regulates most members' currency, it runs agriculture and fisheries as a form of closed shop, and the President of the Commission wields sweeping powers. Members of the Eurozone must submit their annual budgets for the Commission's approval, and the proceeds of member states' growth is redistributed by a mechanism that applies a variable rate to EU budget contributions (this is why Britain has just been ordered to pay £1,700,000,000 to the EU, which will indirectly be given to France and Germany).

The Commission is an unelected body. Member states do elect delegates to the European Parliament, but the EP has very little influence.

The EU is attempting to gain power over financial regulation. It wants its own armed forces. It is seeking large increases to its budget (to be paid by taxpayers in member states).

My own view may have become clear. Do you think the EU is a good thing?

 

[The Question]

I really can't see why it would be a bad thing. Peaceful unification means a greater pool of shared resources and a standardized quality of life. The only problems with the EU are the same problems that all governments have and that its member states would have on an individual level of the EU did not exist.

 

[regwec]

No, that isn't true. The EU has a severe democratic deficit, for one thing.

 

[The Question]

No, that isn't true. The EU has a severe democratic deficit, for one thing.

Well, that is potentially a problem. That might have to be changed or adjusted somehow, but I still think the idea of unifying the continent under one government without a single war is a sound one. As with any idea, it simply needs to be applied the right way.

 

[regwec]

Part of the reason for the democratic deficit I cite is that very few people want to live in a European superstate. The only way democracy could be introduced is by the dissolution of national parliaments and the centralization of power in the (infamously corrupt) Brussels system. The citizens of member states feel they have a right to the continued existence of their countries, and do not want the outcome you suggest as "sound".

 

[chamber-music]

I think the EU needs some reform and certainly has some issues but I'm not one of those 'EU is the root of all problems' scapegoater like those UKIP fruitcakes and members of the right wing press.

 

[regwec]

UKIP are unhelpful, because they have turned the issue into a negative attack on foreign-ness, which it isn't about at all.

I happen to loathe Nigel Farage, perhaps more passionately than anyone else.

 

[The Question]

Part of the reason for the democratic deficit I cite is that very few people want to live in a European superstate. The only way democracy could be introduced is by the dissolution of national parliaments and the centralization of power in the (infamously corrupt) Brussels system. The citizens of member states feel they have a right to the continued existence of their countries, and do not want the outcome you suggest as "sound".

Which may be why the idea might be impractical.

You have to remember, I'm from the United States. Having semi-autonomous administrative subdivisions divided along historical and cultural lines that still ultimately submit to a centralized authority seems pretty reasonable to me by default.

 

[chamber-music]

I wouldn't say the EU and United States are really comparable in this regard.

I think attitudes of people in the UK are leaning towards more decentralization these days.

The ideology seems to be that people in each village, town, city, council, nation have a better understanding of the needs of their population than some centralized government which they don't feel are representing their needs or interests.

We do live in a co-dependent era globalization and migration so some sort of of large for of union is needed if you really want to address some of the big issues.

 

[The Question]

I wouldn't say the EU and United States are really comparable in this regard.

I think attitudes of people in the UK are leaning towards more decentralization these days.

The ideology seems to be that people in each village, town, city, council, nation have a better understanding of the needs of their population than some centralized government which they don't feel are representing their needs or interests.

We do live in a co-dependent era globalization and migration so some sort of of large for of union is needed if you really want to address some of the big issues.

I'm not sure to what extent I buy that philosophy. While it is true than in many respects, local governments or community organizations have a better handle on local issues than a centralized bureaucracy, that attitude can (and in the United States has) been used as an excuse to block vital nationwide initiatives to address universal issues. Rights for LGBT individuals, socialized medicine, gun control, the Equal Rights Amendment, and anti-segregation laws are just a few examples of where the "states' rights" ideology has been used as a tool to hinder or outright kill necessary progressive reforms.

While I understand some need for regional discretion, I think there's a middle ground between that and a centralized pooling of resources and setting of standards that we haven't seen yet.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

The ideology seems to be that people in each village, town, city, council, nation have a better understanding of the needs of their population than some centralized government which they don't feel are representing their needs or interests.
.

you do realize that subsidiarity is one of the general principles of the EU?

 

[regwec]

Subsidiarity only activates where the Union has yet to exercise legislative competence. Conferral is irreversible. Try regulating cheese production in your town now.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think the fundamental issue with the EU is that Europeans don't quite agree on what it should be. Some people want an economic union a la the Benelux, while others want a federated Europe.

I think with the world becoming smaller and smaller, and the polarization caused by Russia (not just now, but really, since the end of the Second World War), that a federated Western Europe is fairly inevitable.

 

[regwec]

Why do you say that? Why do you need an external power to regulate your internal employee rights, or to instruct you on the correct form of E commerce contracts, in order to effectively oppose another foreign aggressor?

Would the USA be better prepared to combat Islamist terrorism it Mexico dictated its livestock welfare policies?

 

[hippie_hunter]

IMO what the EU needs to do is drop the concept of a social Europe and focus entirely on the economics. People are quite resistant when the EU is trying to promote a single Europe that has control over every single policy of a government. Nation-states work best at a smaller level where the national governments know what is best for their local populace, it's why I supported Scottish and Catalan independence. Nationalism, while it can be dangerous when it reaches xenophobic and jingoistic levels, can be a very useful tool to use and the EU should be encouraging that instead of a single European identity.

However, coming together for the big things such as economics is where the EU is most successful at. It's actually what I wrote thesis on and how it's been a very good thing and how many of the problems that Europe is facing now is because they haven't integrated enough. Honestly I would love to see the United States and Canada become more economically integrated with a single currency, open borders, etc.

 

[regwec]

I could almost kiss you. Except that you imply the EU does economics well. Monetary union has been a fiscal straight jacket for many smaller member states, and the national budgetary guidelines are undone by the redistributive contributions metric which fines economies which are performing well, and rewards those which are going for broke. Frankly, it's chaos.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I could almost kiss you. Except that you imply the EU does economics well.

The overall economic goals of the European Union are absolutely brilliant. The removal of barriers to trade to allow the free movement of goods, people, and capital without restriction is what capitalism is all about. It increases trades and boosts the economies of Europe. The member-states of the EU can tap into each other to benefit each other such as the larger member-states having more markets to sell their goods to while the smaller member-states have access to more jobs, investments, etc. It also makes conducting business easier with a set of uniform regulations as opposed to 28 different regulations. The EU is the sole reason why Europe still matters in today's global economy as opposed to being completely forgotten in favor of Asia and North America.

The problems of Europe comes down to the core economics of the member-states. I think my adviser said it best with Europe's biggest problem, they really don't make anything anymore and thus aren't contributing to the global economy other than being consumers. While North America, Asia, and Africa are providing the world with goods, labor, and resources, Europe really doesn't offer much. Their labor pool has gotten far too used to the social democratic safety net and makes labor expensive, manufacturing has moved to North America and Asia, practices in North America and Asia are far more efficient, etc.

Monetary union has been a fiscal straight jacket for many smaller member states, and the national budgetary guidelines are undone by the redistributive contributions metric which fines economies which are performing well, and rewards those which are going for broke. Frankly, it's chaos.

It's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

The core root of the problem with the Eurozone and the budgetary problems of Europe is the simple fact that Greece lied and the EU didn't enforce the rules until it was far too late. Greece wanted the benefits of the Eurozone and lied about their finances to get in. The EU could have looked deeper, but politics and the image of Greece being the only EU member-state at the time to not be in the Eurozone would have looked bad. When it was revealed that Greece lied to get in the Eurozone, the EU did nothing to fix the problem. And to make matters worse, they were essentially allowing all the member-states to break the rules. When everything came crashing down, the EU had no choice but to enforce the rules which resulted in painful austerity measures at the wrong time. Not only that but Greece resulted in bringing pain onto other nations that didn't deserve it, Italy in particular.

If the EU effectively enforced the rules from the get-go, we most likely wouldn't be seeing the problems that we are seeing now.

 

[Morden Man]

I am content with Britain's membership of the European Union.

Are the certain aspects of the European Union that make me slightly uncomfortable? Of course, but I think that being at the table and capable of asking for sensible change in Europe is better than the Norwegian situation where you're paying in whilst not having a vote.

 

[regwec]

The overall economic goals of the European Union are absolutely brilliant. The removal of barriers to trade to allow the free movement of goods, people, and capital without restriction is what capitalism is all about. It increases trades and boosts the economies of Europe. The member-states of the EU can tap into each other to benefit each other such as the larger member-states having more markets to sell their goods to while the smaller member-states have access to more jobs, investments, etc. It also makes conducting business easier with a set of uniform regulations as opposed to 28 different regulations. The EU is the sole reason why Europe still matters in today's global economy as opposed to being completely forgotten in favor of Asia and North America.

Two points: free trade is not the invention of the EU. The "four freedoms" of the EU could and would exist without the continued existence of the vast and expensive EU bureaucracy. Secondly, the harmonization of regulations is all very well, except that it leads the Commission to legislate pre-emptively. In most sensible democracies, regulation is reactive and occurs when a problem is identified. In the EU, regulation is instinctive because the Commission wants to exercise its competence to oust member states wherever possible. This leads to needless regulation, and what is more, the regulation always errs on the side of over-caution and rigidity. Big businesses are less mindful of this, because they can absorb the expense. Small businesses are crushed beneath its weight, however.

For this reason, EU member states are less globally competitive than they should be.

The problems of Europe comes down to the core economics of the member-states. I think my adviser said it best with Europe's biggest problem, they really don't make anything anymore and thus aren't contributing to the global economy other than being consumers. While North America, Asia, and Africa are providing the world with goods, labor, and resources, Europe really doesn't offer much.

Britain is doing rather well. Admittedly, this is in large part due to our services sector, which Brussels is keen to over regulate and over tax in order to ensure that it is as uncompetitive as the rest of Europe.

Their labor pool has gotten far too used to the social democratic safety net and makes labor expensive, manufacturing has moved to North America and Asia, practices in North America and Asia are far more efficient, etc.

The "social democratic safety net" is largely enforced by the EU's Social Chapter.

It's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

The core root of the problem with the Eurozone and the budgetary problems of Europe is the simple fact that Greece lied and the EU didn't enforce the rules until it was far too late. Greece wanted the benefits of the Eurozone and lied about their finances to get in. The EU could have looked deeper, but politics and the image of Greece being the only EU member-state at the time to not be in the Eurozone would have looked bad. When it was revealed that Greece lied to get in the Eurozone, the EU did nothing to fix the problem. And to make matters worse, they were essentially allowing all the member-states to break the rules. When everything came crashing down, the EU had no choice but to enforce the rules which resulted in painful austerity measures at the wrong time. Not only that but Greece resulted in bringing pain onto other nations that didn't deserve it, Italy in particular.

If the EU effectively enforced the rules from the get-go, we most likely wouldn't be seeing the problems that we are seeing now.

The EU ignored its own rules because it is inherently expansionist, and the rules got in the way. Monetary union exacerbated the difficulties experienced by weaker member state economies, because it left them with an inappropriately strong currency calibrated to suit the bullish economy of Germany. Had Greece still had the drachma, they could have devalued it, making Greek labour cheaper and Greek exports more competitive. They wouldn't be experiencing the 20% unemployment that they currently have within the EU.

 

[regwec]

I am content with Britain's membership of the European Union.

Are the certain aspects of the European Union that make me slightly uncomfortable? Of course, but I think that being at the table and capable of asking for sensible change in Europe is better than the Norwegian situation where you're paying in whilst not having a vote.

Britain has an 8% say in the EP, and is almost always in a minority when voting on a motion. Our veto in the Council is becoming less and less effective.

In any case, what is it you want to vote on? If we were outside the EU, we would be immune from its legislation anyway. Matters on which we wished to cooperate with the Union could be negotiated by bi-lateral treaty, by which process we would have more "say".

 

[Morden Man]

Britain has an 8% say in the EP, and is almost always in a minority when voting on a motion. Our veto in the Council is becoming less and less effective.

In any case, what is it you want to vote on? If we were outside the EU, we would be immune from its legislation anyway. Matters on which we wished to cooperate with the Union could be negotiated by bi-lateral treaty, by which process we would have more "say".

Britain chooses to set itself against the rest of the European Union time and time again and then wonders why our veto on the council has become less effective. We have next to no allies in Europe because our approach to it is so myopic. Where once Britain was seeing as a liberalising effect in the European Union that could act as a counterbalance the Franco-Germanic tendency to over-regulate and over-centralise it's now rightly seen as increasingly toxic because Cameron is so slavishly beholden to his backbenchers on the issue.

There's an easier way to get what we want in Europe than withdrawing from it and that would be to accept the responsibilities that come with the membership of the European Union as gladly as we do the benefits. Germany, Italy, Holland, Bulgaria, Romania, and Poland are all potential allies to Britain in making a more liberalised Europe and yet we make it hard for them to support that agenda by every turning by kicking up a stink anytime anything is asked of Britain.

 

[regwec]

You prove my point: within the EU, your voice is only heard if you agree with the Commission. If you're argument is that Britain never gets its way because Britain always wants something different from the EU, then the case for exit becomes very clear.

 

[Morden Man]

I think plenty of countries within the EU want the same thing as Britain but that the British political class would rather bow to the wills of Nigel Farage and Paul Dacre than make the necessary sacrifices to achieve those things.

When Britain engages it can build the necessary alliances it needs to push things through, see: EU budget being cut when no-one thought it was possible. When it resorts to myopia and populism it doesn't get its way and then rather than blaming the approach it blames the institution.

 

[Lilbaz]

Why can't Britain have a free trade agreement if we leave?

I think that the EU will only work if it's budget is properly audited. There is a set minimum wage across Europe. Harmonised laws and benefits. Then a full introduction of a single currency.

This wont happen any time soon. So I would prefer Britain to renegotiate its stance. The common agricultural policy has to go. And benefits should only be paid to someone that has worked in a country for more than 2 years. The act of European countries giving 30 day visas to immigrants and then sending them on to Britain has to stop. And EU citizens that have not worked in this country will need to pay for any treatment received on the NHS. Lastly the EU budget (especially that of MEP's) should be cut.

 

[regwec]

@MM

If, as you suggest, a majority within the EU want the same things as Britain, why is our agenda always in the minority? Are you suggesting that EU member states are so cowed by the Commission's smirking dislike of Britain that they routinely vote against their own best interests purely to frustrate ours?

I am unsure upon what you think it is that Europe is united with us in wanting the EU to legislate. Broadly speaking, Britain wants (and has always wanted) one thing from Europe: free trade. That is now a done deal. What agenda is it that you now suppose we need the EU to impose, and what are the "sacrifices" that you think we should make in order to facilitate it?