Is the EU going to dissolve to a simple free trade area?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
My point is, if the free market policies you dislike are ones France would have had to adopt anyway, EU or no EU, then they ARE NOT concessions to the EU.

There was absolutely no reason to break our State monopolies and to open their markets, bar the EU. There would have been no market pressure in markets such as the telecoms, energy, railroads, simply there would be no competition if it wasn't for the EU.

There would be no market pressure in order to stop us from subsiding our companies if it wasn't for the EU (political pressure is another matter, but it's definitely not "natural" as the market pressure). Today, it is extremelky tricky to bail out companies.

and i fail to see how in a common market with free movement across borders, such the EU was even back when it was the EEC, you could stop outsourcing. Again to imagine an EU that had free labor flows across borders, but no outsourcing, is imagining a French fantasy.

Very simply: give a special status to new members, meaning they don't have full rights of the old members. This is already happening on matters such as migration, CAP, and probably plenty of other things I don't know about. It's not nice, it's contrary to the principles the EU is built upon, but a "iron first" ruler would get it away pretty easily.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
Spiffor, Nokia has sold well with or without EU. Inside Europe, what local brands?

Ericsson, Sagem, Alcatel, Mannesmann... And this is on top of my head, I had never any interest in cell phones. At the beginning of the cell phone market, only a few years ago, the market was pretty open, and Nokia won in the end. Nokia wouldn't have won if there had been tarriffs in large countries, or if these countries had sponsored their own companies.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

There was absolutely no reason to break our State monopolies and to open their markets, bar the EU. There would have been no market pressure in markets such as the telecoms, energy, railroads, simply there would be no competition if it wasn't for the EU.

There would be no market pressure in order to stop us from subsiding our companies if it wasn't for the EU (political pressure is another matter, but it's definitely not "natural" as the market pressure). Today, it is extremelky tricky to bail out companies.


Very simply: give a special status to new members, meaning they don't have full rights of the old members. This is already happening on matters such as migration, CAP, and probably plenty of other things I don't know about. It's not nice, it's contrary to the principles the EU is built upon, but a "iron first" ruler would get it away pretty easily.

Excluded middle. France doesnt rule the EU with an iron fist != France doesnt rule the EU.

The US stepped back in Fallujah due to pressure from Iraqi politicians. The US never did conduct planned privatizations, especially oil. The US accepted a choice it didnt want for Iraqi president. The US is already squabbling with the Iraqi Interim Govt about several other issues. All this BEFORE June 30.

Would you therefore state the US does not rule Iraq?

Rulership isnt always total. It often - usually - involves compromise. My right wing friends tend to forget that. Im surprised you would.

[Pekka]

right... I think you're underestimating the power of good marketing and quality products. So because of the lack of protectionism, and this is all thanks to EU you say, Nokia made it big? I'm sorry, I'm not buying this without very good evidence and research. For the record, their managment has been again and again been praised by many experts and has been nominated the best business managment outside the US for several times by those experts, last time I think it was the guys responsible for fortune 500 magazine. Of course to discredit these facts and saying it's all thanks to EU and because they didn't impose protectionist rules is not very water proof. It's like thanking someone for not crapping in your cereal. Which is exactly the usual EU tactics that I don't like. Bullying around the small ones. 'You can't get that one. You can get small fraction of that because we say so and if you don't accept, you get none of it', and then you're supposed to be happy you at least got something? No no no.. this is not the way it goes. And if you say that that is the way with every one, then I wonder what good EU is good for anyway.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Rulership isnt always total. It often - usually - involves compromise. My right wing friends tend to forget that. Im surprised you would.

I don't.

France and Germany are clearly at the helm of the EU. They force themselves to agree on everything, to have a rock-solid coalition, so that their leadership gets as littly scathed as possible by ambitious other countries.

However, when I read Pekka saying France rules Europe with an "Iron Fist", or when I read our Brits and Yanks thinking the EU is a French tool, I do cringe. Because it is false.

I actually despise the fact that the leadership in the EU is held by petty power struggles, and by pathetic haggling. By this logic, big countries become monoliths in the hands of one leader (who can be of the quality of a Chirac or a Berlusconi), and small countries are little coalition bricks to whom the big ones must give a cookie every now and then.

This is the reason why I'm an outspoken advocate of supranational democracy, where the real power is held by a democratically elected Parliament. This is the only way to have an efficient decision making. Especially now that there aren't six member states anymore.

[Pekka]

Of course these things are not very simple.

However, there are few things that are simple IMO. For example ALL the unnecessary bureocracy should be bombed to destruction everywhere we see it. There's is absolutely no need for people who push around papers one hour and then look busy the rest of the day. There is no need for many of these people and the bureocracy. It's like a way to secure few jobs to few people when there's no need for it. It's all to feed the machine that would work faster and better if we just looked at it, used our heads and cut down few parts. And it's not my tax money that pays for it, it's yours too and everyone elses.
That's perfectly good money wasted.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

PRIVATIZE GOVERNMENT!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
However, there are few things that are simple IMO. For example ALL the unnecessary bureocracy should be bombed to destruction everywhere we see it. There's is absolutely no need for people who push around papers one hour and then look busy the rest of the day.

Actually, the EU bureaucrats are most often among the best, and are generally hardworking people. The EU considerably lacks civil servants, because it has too many competences for not enough "functioning" budget (this is BTW a reason why the lobbies are so efficient with EU institutions: they do the work - in their skewed way- that the bureaucracy can't do).

The main reason why the bureacuracy is hellish is not because the people there are slackers. It's because things are horribly complicated, and REQUIRE a hellish bureaucracy to go with.

Say, the German people brought an issue to Schröder's attention, by signing a wide petition. This is an issue that gets decided by the EU. Here is what could happen:

1. Schröder will ask other countries to consider making a policy about it

2. (some weeks later) Some other countries agree with the idea, some oppose it, and some ask cookies to be convinced either way. A cycle of haggling ensues, where Schröder gives concessions to these "swaying" countries. This assumes Schröder wants to please his population THAT much, which is pure fiction already

3. (A few months later) Schröder has gathered a coalition that agrees with the idea, on principle. They now ask the Commission to prepare an actual EU law about, that is technically spotless.

4. (three months later) The Commission has finished the project. The original idea was watered down already by the concessions made by Schröder, it is now even more watered down by all the legal notes and the role of the lobbies. The project gets transferred to the European Parliament and to the Council of Ministers.

5. The Parliament's specialized committee studies the project. It elaborates amendments, that are first voted on in the committee, then in plenum. This takes several weeks.

6. The Council of Ministers is now confronted to a technical project, and not on a question of principle. It gives an opinion on the issue. If the commission project strongly displeases some countries, to the point no majority can be found, the Council can either reject the project, or they can try to be unanimous to make amendments. This will
take at least several weeks.

7. The Commission will try to implement the suggested amendments in the technical text. This will take a few weeks.

8. The amended text is presented to the Parliament again. It can accept it, reject it, or amend it again. Same with the Council.

9. If the Parliament and the Council don't completely agree, a middleman is designated to find a consensus. This will take a few weeks.

10. If no consensus is found, the whole idea is shot down. The whole process has probably taken a year, it has demanded much time to legal and technical experts, to a bunch of translators, it has required ministers or envoys to travel to Brussels, etc. In the best case, it leads to a decision. In the worst case, it leads to naught.

---

THIS is the true face of EU bureaucracy. In that example, even if the bureacrats had worked like crazy (which happens quite frequently in the EU), the whole thing would have costed a fortune because it is so fricking complicated.

[Spiffor]

And if I may add, the reason the system is so horribly broken and bureaucratic is because of the people who keep their national soverignity jealously (and because of the German political culture, which is very similar to the way the EU handles the three differring seats of power).

If the power was primarily held by the Parliament, things would get voted or rejected quickly. No need to check and balance it ten times, no need to spend humongous amounts of time haggling some favour or other. Much fewer expenditures, much faster process, and one that actually looks like what the Europeans want.

[VetLegion]

Go get 'em Spiffor

Insightful thread. I didn't know Finns were treated with this much disrespect in the EU.

[OliverFA]

I was a convinced pro-EU. The politicians in that institution achieved what seemed impossible, that I ended hating it.

The idea is great. An economic and political union that puts end to the differences between the countries in the continent and give higher prosperity and wellbeing for all its citizen.

The practice: The EU has been converted in something like "let´s gather together to face the USA". Even worst (even worst from an European point of view I mean) lot of "idealists" and politicians that din´t found a place at other place are comfortably installed in Brussels and impose their silly laws, like the one about subsiding formers for producing the food in a more expensive way. Submiting everything to the electoralism is bad, but never consulting the people (or ignoring them like in the recent elections because the result don´t really represent anything) is even worst.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Spiffor
France and Germany are clearly at the helm of the EU. They force themselves to agree on everything, to have a rock-solid coalition, so that their leadership gets as littly scathed as possible by ambitious other countries.

Are we talking about the same EU? Like they forced themselves to reach and agreement this week when 22 countries where against them? Only Spain defended them. Its not strange that in just a month our new government has achieved that 22 countries in the EU hate us.

Precisely all this discussion about the Niza agreement is about preventing France and Germany from having the power to block any decission unilaterally. It would be needed just two "big" countries (France, Germany, UK and Italy) for it. That´s completely unfair for everyone else.

[Odin]

The EU needs to get democratized fast before those nationalist nuts, like the BNP, get stronger. You guys also need to simplify your EU law-making process, and I though the way we do it here was complicated

[Bereta_Eder]

The constiution was agreed upon, thats good i think.

[Bereta_Eder]

reactions

cyrpus: glad turkey will be force to start trading with it (doesnt even recognize it). UK objections were overuled. thanks to the euros for sticking with cyprus

greece: blha blha blha

france: an important step forward blha blha blha creates more cohesion in foreign policy

uk: noooo my dear citizens id dont create no superstate... noooo my dear citizens

germany: it wil move ze europa forward.

turkey: they didnt tell anything about our "progress" boohoo


all in all it got through

now lets see it being ratified