Taram!!! The new Europe.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
That's not an impression though; it's the truth. At the heart of the EU there is a simple belief that "integration is good", without any thought for why or the consequences.

My above posts could introduce you to the reasons why integration is deemed good. At the very least, it has to do with efficiency concerns. There is also the idea that a democratic Europe can only emerge when further integration i achieved (i.e when the accountable and elected European Parliement gets more power than the unaccountable and unelected council of ministers)

But no, of course all EU zealots are nothing more than thoughtless sycophants...

[*End Is Forever*]

You're missing the point... "Europe" already is democratic; as far as I'm aware there aren't any dictatorships within the EU. The best way to stop eroding democracy is to stop giving power away to the centre and keep it with the sovereign nation states! What sort of perverse logic entails people to think that the best way to increase democracy is to transfer it to a less democratic and completely unrepresentative institution and then hope for the best?

You've just inadvertently proved my point Spiffor. The out-of-touch goons at the centre take integration as a granted. It is presented as if there is no alternative; no argument is made for why we should integrate more. They are wrong.

[Pekka]

And that's my whole beef with the centralized power in the EU if it ever becomes reality, also when it comes to EU core: We are unrepresented. Yes EU say 'you are all represented what you talk about' and on the other hand when we find examples of we not being that equal 'well this is the way it goes, big boys usually lead what did you expect, be realistic' and in the same line 'but this is still good for us'. Good for who exactly? LIke I said before, this is looking more and more like us small countris being integrated to big ones, and not like a union. I'm talking about SU style, without the communist part.

We are not in military alliance with anyone. So, why should we get to one, where we don't have a say? 'Oh the core will give you safety guarantees'. Well everyone should listen carefully, if there's something history has taught us is that there IS NO GUARANTEES. It's all talk at this point. I mean damn, we might all actually believe it even and mean it. BUt when the crap hits the fence and starts flying all over, waiting for that promise, it's really not the greatest thing to feel good about yourself 'well I guess they'll try their best'.

This is the part that is most impossible "with unified and single command structure". No way that will ever work. It works POORLY on two good allies. Talk about whole EU? Come on, if this is not utopia and unrealistic, then I don't know what is.
It's no use, it's sick thinking. Best thing to think is that everyone takes care of their own stuff, period. We'll see what happens when it happens and make fast decisions then. Because everything else is promises and they can be broken just like that. Just like the rest of the rules like we just witnessed by not paying the fine.

It just won't work, and everyone telling 'well you arrogant bastards it's because of guys like you it won't ever work, not willing to co-operate'. EXACTLY! Bastards like me makes it impossible, and bastards like me are all over the EU so better get that out in the air now, and not when it's time to act. Trying to force people to this thing is even bigger crime. I mean, how good is your country now telling you about all these things that are on the table? How deep is the information you get? It's the known tactics of slowly forcing a bigger thing to become reality, when people have to eat it little by little, they accept it little by little with only little fights, and not the big deal braking fight.

[Pekka]

I have something people should think about.

Did French and Germany say, that NATO is BS because Americans will do as they wish anyway, so why the alliance to begin with? Maybe not these exact words, but this was the common atmosphere. Well I have news for you, what about this EU core then? Is it any different?

I said then that you show support to your allied friend. You're in alliance, so act like it. OR don't get allied in the first place. I say, we shouldn't get allied in the first place, so then we don't have to whine about it when there's something going on, and there will be a time when something will be going on.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
You've just inadvertently proved my point Spiffor. The out-of-touch goons at the centre take integration as a granted. It is presented as if there is no alternative; no argument is made for why we should integrate more. They are wrong.

If you care to read lengthy posts about the reasons for an integrated EU, you may be able to discover there are reasons

If we are currently in the EU, rather than in some general non-agreesion zone, is because the European continent shares many identical economic interests, with many similar economic conditions, and an immense economic interplay.
If even the Brits wanted to enter the EU, it's because they knew it served their pocketbook interest.

Thus, the question of what good can bring the EU on the economical level is already answered. Being member of the EU is generally good for a Member-State's economy and for its overall prosperity. It opens a wider market to your best products, it gives a higher range of products to choose from for the consumer, it allows students to travel to get better formations, etc.

Now, the EU is confronted to a challenge: how to make the system efficient?
So far, the system works through haggling. Every individual member State haggles its national interests, and a decision is taken when everybody is more or less in agreement. Very rarely so far has the EU taken decisions that were a clear no-no for individual governments, or these governments always got a cookie for them in another issue.

This system was working without significant problem when there were 6 members. But as there were more and nore members, it was obvious there were more and more possibilities of disagreement, and of blocking EU decisions. In short, policies that could benefit the EU as a whole (and yes, it includes your country) became more often blocked by hostile Member-States. As a result, decisions began to take years to be taken, and sometimes they were taken too late.

Hence the question of efficiency. As we add 2/3 more Member-States, how can the EU decide anything at all with all the potential of disagreement?

There are several possible answers:
- Continue the current system, and give small countries more power. I guess you'll surely appreciaite the idea of Malta blocking all British initiatives. Other than that, it doesn't solve the problem at all, it worsens it: the more powerful the small countries, the more numerous potential of disagreement, and thus lack of EU decisions.

- Continue the current system, but give more power to the big countries. It will make decision making more efficient, as fewer countries are susceptible to block the decision. Hoyever, it'll make the EU even less legitimate and eevn less accountable. There would now be a valid reason why people will whine about the "French-German tyrants"

- Overhaul the current system, and make a central decision power, that has the interest of the EU in mind, and that is chosen among the most able servants the EU has to offer. We'll reach decisions quickly, and most decisions will actually improve the overall economic situation, although some areas will not profit from the policy. Such a system would manage to be even more unaccountable than the crap we have now. I don't think that's what you want.

- Overhaul the current system and have the power lie in a central parliament with an accountable government. Such a system would have the benefits of both 1) making Europe accountable and Democratic and 2) allowing general-interest decisions to be taken in a timely manner.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
I said then that you show support to your allied friend. You're in alliance, so act like it. OR don't get allied in the first place. I say, we shouldn't get allied in the first place, so then we don't have to whine about it when there's something going on, and there will be a time when something will be going on.

In your opinion, why do countries get allied in the first place?

[Pekka]

I know why countries get allied. But I also think they should brake up if it doesn't work. Because after it doesnt' work, well what good is it anyway, there's no value. Two countries can be allied. Three countries can be allied. It could still work. Whole bunch of countries being allied in a way, that there is this core that gives you safety guarantees? It's not worth trust if you ask me. Because if you decide to do it, then you have to follow it through, rain or sun shining.

Would it work, if there wouldn't be a core then? No.

[Pekka]

And basically, I don't think it's a wise move to give any other countries to give you any safety guarantees. It's safety, number one priority at all times. You keep it in your own hands, and that's it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
And basically, I don't think it's a wise move to give any other countries to give you any safety guarantees. It's safety, number one priority at all times. You keep it in your own hands, and that's it.

What exactly are the "safety guarantees" you're talking about?

If we have a system dominated by Germany's and France's governments, they'll obviously try to cheat you whenever possible. If we have a parliamentary system, the French and German governments will simply have no power to cheat you.

[Pekka]

Let me put it this way.

Money ruins friendships. Two good friends are buddies for a long time. Then comes money to their relationship. It gets all nasty, and relationship brakes. THey might even become enemies. YOu wouldn't have believed it before it happened. You sweared to each other. But it happened. And happens all the time.

Alliance means crap to me. That's why I don't give my personal alliance to anyone easily. Actually, alliance means TOO MUCH to me. As I've said in some earlier thread, my biggest 'virtue' is loyality. Loyal to the bitter end. No turning back until the fat lady sings, if you have promised and sweared it. People are, however, weak. So giving alliance to someone means 100% real deal, and if the other part brakes it, they can burn in hell as they don't have anything left to live for. All you have is your word and honour. Everything else is BS. That's all you REALLY have. Brake it once, and you have no value.
So it's a two way road. On the other hand when you give it, you need to be sure the other part will keep it too. How do you know this? Money ruins friendships like that. Are we, countries in EU better friends? Absolutely not. We are friends, but not that good friends.

Also, country has no word or honour. They have papers, agreements, to and for these imaginary things we call nations. Can nation hold its word? No, politics are one of the dirtiest grounds of words and backstabbing.

When it comes to safety, only one you can trust is yourself. Everything else is foolishness. If someone helps you, it's a bonus. But if your friends flee, don't be surprised. Don't get caught your pants down, then you will lose. Make sure you can handle it, and if someone decides to show their solidarity and friendship, and will show up for you, then you are friends and you can celebrate it later, and not talking about business and new alliances as it can ruin it in the future.

When you're allied, truly allied, you'll go down with the other one and never back away. Does this happen in real life? Sometimes, but rarely. That's why alliances when it comes to safety are BS. COnsider it bonus when someone helps, but never ever listen to anyone who guarantees you something, because that is something they just can't do.

[Pekka]

I'm talking about the so called military alliance.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
I'm talking about the so called military alliance.

Oh ok. I agree with you that military alliance has nothing to do in there, at least for the time being.
At least as long as there is no political integration, the relationship between national militaries will remember vassalage more than equal partner-relations

[Pekka]

So we agree. I'm not saying that there is no scenario it might work. I just haven't heard about it yet. I've said before, EU should have their own power so they will be recognized and our politics would have some strength in it. Kind of strange, huh? Well, it remains to be seen what happens. Let's say I don't close the doors 100%, you never know what comes up. But as for now, I'm extremely sceptic about it.

As for other deals in the EU, I wasn't referring to them.
There's lots I'm unhappy with, but basically it's not that big of a problem as I see the military side, as I believe they can be worked out. I'm little sceptic about that too, but I can see the other sides getting better, or so I hope.

[Mazarin]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
My problem with the EU, and the biggest problem most Brits have, is that its political system is not accountable, does not allow for differences in national outlook or culture and doesn't offer any advantage over what our domestic politicians impose on us (that's the perception, whether true or not). We understand the economic benefits and want them but don't see any political benefits. Change that impression and many Brits might consider things differently.

Perfectly understandable. I think that the EU offers us great chances in the future because many things (e.g.
foreign policy, defence, trade) should be done on a larger scale -simply because we share common principles here (there are disagreements on some points, but they also exist within the countries)
EU does need a stronger democratic legitimation as Spiffor pointed out, but if we are able to achieve this, it might be one of the best things that can happen to our continent. I'd rather have the powers of my current government redistributed to the EU on the one side -and to the European regions on the other. I simply believe that some things should be done on a larger scale and others on a smaller one...In southwest Germany, for example, we probably have more common problems/interests with people from eastern France than with northern Germans.
Some countries seem to be more willing to share their souvereignity that others -but how can we convince them that it works other that going forward? That's how it has been working for the last decades -most countries didn't join the EU before they saw it worked.

[VetLegion]

I'd rather have the powers of my current government redistributed to the EU on the one side - and to the European regions on the other.

Didn't Schroeder float this idea some time ago? Did it have any lasting impact?