How do you stop a new EU treaty?

[Spiffor]

Well, me being for harmonised budgetary policy is a personal opinion, but I think it is only common sense when there is a common monetary policy (the monetarist dogma hits the whole €-zone because of the ECB's objectives). I favor the idea of the EU raising some taxes immediately to finance its own policies, but I sure don't want national taxes to disappear.

Heck, in an age where intrastate regions get more and more power in whole Europe, it would be absurd to centralize all the tax money somewhere.

But I really think that the EU as a whole should define the role devoted to itself and those devoted to the nations. What you said about "but if a country doesn't want..." made me think of this example:

------- Let's just say Blair has put some purely internal reform to referendum. 60% vote yes, but the majority of Aberystwyth has voted against. Should the reform not pass ? Should Aberystwyth "opt out" ? How can it opt out when the reform can only concern the UK as a whole ? (such as getting rid of the Chambers of Lords ?) -------

In many circumstances, there is no "opt out" being possible, but a do or don't. That's what happening with the EU enlargement for example. In such circumstances, any country has a veto power. When we'll be 25, you should explain me how we'll be able to move on on any delicate point with such system.

[Drogue]

You won't be able to move on any delecate positions. With regards to your example, I see it as a matter of size. Something as small as Aberystwyth has much more to gain from integration than anything it will have to provide. That is because some things work better on a larger scale, like public services, tax, defence, etc. However when it comes to nations, few things, IMHO, work better on a an even larger scale. Defence would be one, but fiscal and monetary policy, for the mostpart, doesn't. I'm all for devolving public services, so that local authorities get more power, as it is more efficient. Enlarging it even more would be so burocratic and inefficient that it would be unteneable, IMHO. The ECBs Monetarist policies are a large reason for my hesitation in joining the Euro. The Bank of England do a good job as it is

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, me being for harmonised budgetary policy is a personal opinion, but I think it is only common sense when there is a common monetary policy (the monetarist dogma hits the whole €-zone because of the ECB's objectives). I favor the idea of the EU raising some taxes immediately to finance its own policies, but I sure don't want national taxes to disappear.

Heck, in an age where intrastate regions get more and more power in whole Europe, it would be absurd to centralize all the tax money somewhere.

But I really think that the EU as a whole should define the role devoted to itself and those devoted to the nations. What you said about "but if a country doesn't want..." made me think of this example:

------- Let's just say Blair has put some purely internal reform to referendum. 60% vote yes, but the majority of Aberystwyth has voted against. Should the reform not pass ? Should Aberystwyth "opt out" ? How can it opt out when the reform can only concern the UK as a whole ? (such as getting rid of the Chambers of Lords ?) -------

.

well my impression is that what concerns many in the UK is having the UK reduced to the role of Aberystwyth. Aberystwyth isnt sovereign. The UK is. Ergo it cant be forced to accept anything against its will. Here in the US for example, a change can be made to the constitution (following appropriate procedure) against the will of any particular state. OTOH if someone wants to make a change to NAFTA, each member (canada, the US, and Mexico) must agree. That cause NAFTA is fundamentally different from a federal state (such as each MEMBER of NAFTA) Its a treaty among sovereigns. If Canada and the US wish to change their relationship, it must be hashed out by the civil servants, under the direction of the elected leaders. Not by elected "north american" parliamentarians.

Only one level can be sovereign. We found that out the hard way, in 1861. Y'all have to decide which level is going to be sovereign and proceed from their.

[Az]

Personally, I think that Drogue's proposition will lead to a hardly workable, half-assed confederation that is bound to either transform into a federal superstate, or fall apart.

[Drogue]

My proposal basically keeps it as it is ATM. I think it is working fine. I don't want no treaty there, but then I don't want a superstate either. It may grow to have it's own defence force, it may reduce to being a NAFTA style treaty. Anything between the two is fine with me.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Only one level can be sovereign. We found that out the hard way, in 1861. Y'all have to decide which level is going to be sovereign and proceed from their.

To me, the choice is obvious. It's the EU. It's the only way for the European countries to keep their status as economic and geopolitic powers.
Now, I'm all for decentraliziation on plenty competences (I actually think most competences of today's member states should remain theirs), but I want the EU as a whole to be the one which decides such competences. I have no problem with having UK or France reduced to the role of Aberyswyth: what counts is that Europe moves on and becomes great once again.

[Az]

Spiffor:

[The Mad Monk]

The United States learned its lessons the hard way, two hundred years ago when these terms were still relatively new.

The EU will need the ability to tax directly, and to enforce that tax over local objections. That necessitates a federal level police force.

[Drogue]

And is one of the reasons I disagree. I think a lot of small nations can work more effectively and efficiently than one large one. Therefore I would want the nations to be Sovereign, and there to be treaties between them. I think that with one large free market is better than having a superstate, which will probably be more regulated.

[Az]

I think a lot of small nations can work more effectively and efficiently than one large one.

I don't think it's correct. My father, a fleet exploitation engineer, said that in complex systems the most efficient exploitation of every part of the system doesn't necessary lead to overall best efficiency.

[Drogue]

Your father is right, it doesn't. However the extra burocracy from trying to run a nation the size of Europe would make it less efficient. A CAS (complex adaptive system) runs itself, so does not have that problem. A CAS is a perfect situation, and like a perfectly free market, does not exist. There is burocracy and inefficiency to factor in to the results from the CAS. With that factored it, I think a lot of small nations will be more efficient. That last bit is open to debate though, whether the efficiency gain from a lack of burocracy outweighs the gain from the larger system.

It is similar to the free market vs state run economy. A CAS can show that a perfectly state run economy, that is one without burocracy at all, is more efficient than a perfectly free market one. However, obviously, a state run economy has far more burocracy than a free market, which runs itself. Therefore it becomes a matter of individual situations whether the efficiency from the lack of burocracy outweighs the efficiency of being a planned economy.

Personally, I think with all the externalities of each situation, the best choice for both is somewhere near the centre. That is, having nations the size of nations, rather than continents, and rather than individual people. What treaties those nations sign is a different matter, and free trade between nations has been shown to increase efficiency, which is why I support the EEC and EU as a trading bloc. However when it comes to nation status, and the ability to make individual states conform, and to charge it's own direct tax, I think it is better left at a nation level.

Putting a nation like the US into the mix changes thigns further though. If all nations were small, but equally sized, then this works fine. However if competing for power against a large other nation is important, then increasing the size matters more.

This is all a long winded way of saying that some things work better on a small scale, and some on a large scale. What you think is best for each is a matter of opinion, but what happens in a perfect CAS does not necessarily prove either way. It also depends on your objective, whether it be power (from defence to winning the World Cup), freedom (the ability to choose your own laws and systems) or prosperity (the wealth and happiness of your citizens); and on externalities like what other nations are doing.

[Az]

As logistics, and communication technology progress, the more centralization is favored.

[Drogue]

Very true. However until we get telepathy (ie. perfect communication) there will still be limits on the size that is most efficient. I think for the next 20 years a superstate won't happen, and won't be a good idea. I think then it would start to become a good idea, but won't happen (at least not with the UK in it). I think it will be 30 or 40 years before the UK is for a superstate, if it ever will be. And that is the failing of democracy Take the Sun (newspaper) out of the picture, and it becomes a possibility par earlier

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Spiffor

To me, the choice is obvious. It's the EU. It's the only way for the European countries to keep their status as economic and geopolitic powers.
Now, I'm all for decentraliziation on plenty competences (I actually think most competences of today's member states should remain theirs), but I want the EU as a whole to be the one which decides such competences. I have no problem with having UK or France reduced to the role of Aberyswyth: what counts is that Europe moves on and becomes great once again.

By great do you just mean French foreign policy with more clout.

I thought the EU was about peace security and living standards not about being great.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by TheStinger
By great do you just mean French foreign policy with more clout.
I thought the EU was about peace security and living standards not about being great.

There are two big (and recent) achievements done by the EU, in which the EU speak as one voice. Guess what: only by speaking with one voice can the EU defend the interest of its members...

So far, two significant steps have been achieved:
- The EU speaks with one voice in trade negociations (there is no national sovereignity on trade anymore). It allowed us to actually defend our interests in the last rounds, and to be equals with the US. Compare this with the Uruguay Round of the early 90's, where each country spoke for itself: each country could only get little concessions from the US demands, and there was no way to further negociate after that. I happen to oppose EU trade policies ("you poor countries open your markets absolutely. We will continue to close ours"), but when the EUParliament finally becomes powerful, we will at last be able to weight on such policies.

- the Euro-zone has one currency. It allows the national economies not to be completely dependent on the US Dollar, but to depend on a currency whose Central Bank has the interest of the EU in mind (or rather, is supposed to). I disagree with the objectives of the ECB too, as I think growth should take precedence over price stability. However, the aims of the central bank don't budge because they have been decided in difficult-to-change treaties. Countries now can't agree on other rules, and thus the outdated objectives of the ECB remain the same; if there was one single organism to decide the aims of the ECB, it'll be much more adapted to the economic realities of the EU (the aims of a central bank are given by the politicians; the Bank is only independent in the ways it uses to reach such aims).

---

Now, what we don't have is a serious common research policy. We are struggling between each other to get the best brains of our European neighbours and of our former colonies. Such internal struggle doesn't allow us to have a cohesive research, and we are lagging behind the US, and even Japan.

We don't have a serious common diplomacy. As such, our diplomatic choices during crises are completely dependent of what Washington is doing. We are in no situation to create a diplomatic climate that is good for our interests. We are only in the situation to take the best we can out of the climate created by Washington.

However, we do have a Common Agricultural Policy which only continues to exist because the French government is using all his weight to keep it working. You can expect the Polish government to defend the CAP staunchly too, when Poland joins next year. For some reason, I think a one-voice EU would shut up the CAP pretty quickly