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

[Solly]

After the latest bout of elections, what does everyone think? The press are acting like the turnout was high in the UK..yet it was still less than half. Lower in most other countries too..

Without the EU it's not like we're going to return to war.

And we can keep the essential part of it, the free trade. Everything else is just a waste of money and bureaucracy.

[Spiffor]

There is nothing in recent history that suggests the EU will be dumbed down as a Free Trade area. At the contrary, its competences have been expanded every time they have been reassessed. The elections don't change anything about it.

So far, the question is mainly whether there will be a two-tier EU, with some countries integrating politically while others do not, or a one tier EU, in which every country follows the same evolution, which will be slower or even stagnating.

[Solly]

"There is nothing in recent history that suggests the EU will be dumbed down as a Free Trade area."

What's dumb is the forcing through of layers upon layers of integration that the public don't want.

"At the contrary, its competences have been expanded every time they have been reassessed. The elections don't change anything about it."

Elections will change it. They have to unless it's anti-democratic.

"or a one tier EU, in which every country follows the same evolution, which will be slower or even stagnating."

There is no need for further integration. We are better just reverting back to the free trade area. That is the only thing that benefits each nation.

Then we can regain sovereignty and regain control of issues such as asylum. Britain can also get a few billion pounds back to help our public services rather than paying inefficient French farmers.

[Whaleboy]

Why do you dislike the EU?

[Solly]

"Why do you dislike the EU?"

Because I like Europe.

[GePap]

No.

[Gangerolf]

Even if the eurosceptics got the majority of the seats in the EP they wouldn't be able to change the structure of the EU. That's for the national governments to decide.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"At the contrary, its competences have been expanded every time they have been reassessed. The elections don't change anything about it."

Elections will change it. They have to unless it's anti-democratic.

1. The elections have shown more support for Euro-supporters than for Eurosceptics. Sure, only among those that have voted, but there are many different interpretations for the abstentionists' behaviour, and nobody can say "the abstentionists want this or that". We're stuck with the actual voters.

2. The EU is antidemocratic. And this is precisely because of the lack of political integration that we're stuck with a hellish bureaucracy that is unaccountable to the population.
The MEPs will have no say on the direction taken by the EU until this power is given to them. Surprisingly enough ( ), it is the lovers of national sovereignity that make it impossible for the European Parliament to have such power.
Thus, voting for the UKIP in European elections is only useful in voicing an opinion, not in trying to weigh on the decisions. If you are serious about changing the EU, you have to vote UKIP / BNP in the next general elections.

"or a one tier EU, in which every country follows the same evolution, which will be slower or even stagnating."

There is no need for further integration. We are better just reverting back to the free trade area. That is the only thing that benefits each nation.

The common trade policy (i.e the fact that individual member states have no sovereignitiy whatsoever on their trade policy, which is decided at Brussels) has considerably benefited the EU, since the US now has a univocal equal in trade bargainings. Thanks to this, we don't sacrifice our trade interests to the US.
And if we are to give up some sovereignity to the EU, for the sake of efficiency (as the common trade policy so clearly illustrates), the EU in its form will remain.

Actually, the main debate among EU scholars is whether the benefits of further integration (which mostly concern the efficiency of decision making, and the democratic legitimacy of the EU) outweight the resistances offered by the sovereignity-groupies or not.
Basically, the "spill over" effect (the effect in which further integration was only natural) is finished, and we are now in the tricky part where further integration will be more efficient, but won't look as natural to politicians and public opinions.

Then we can regain sovereignty and regain control of issues such as asylum. Britain can also get a few billion pounds back to help our public services rather than paying inefficient French farmers. [/QUOTE]

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"Why do you dislike the EU?"

Because I like Europe.

[laurentius]

This is stupid

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Spiffor

2. The EU is antidemocratic. And this is precisely because of the lack of political integration that we're stuck with a hellish bureaucracy that is unaccountable to the population.
The MEPs will have no say on the direction taken by the EU until this power is given to them. Surprisingly enough ( ), it is the lovers of national sovereignity that make it impossible for the European Parliament to have such power.

It isn't that surprising... They don't want the EP to become more powerful because it doesn't represent the memberstates. I guess you can't love both national sovereignty and a supranational institution. Or maybe you can, but only when it comes to free trade

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Why do you dislike the EU?

There are whole books written about this, whaleboy.

[Whaleboy]

I like the EU on principle more than anything else. In practice its awful, especially the fact that something like 50% of its budget (that comes from taxpayers) goes on subsidising farmers to produce expensive crops that we could get from the third world, instead the latter starves .

Nonetheless, the basic idea is good, and I hope that once they get rid of the stupid CAP, the red tape etc, it will lead to a federal European state. That would be so cool!!

EDIT: Typo... CAP, thanks Oerdin

[Dinner]

I believe you are talking about the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). I don't know what CEP is.

The British and to a lesser extent the Germans have been pushing for major changes in CAP for a while but this is only because they have to foot the bill for the lavish subsidies French Farmers gobble up. I doubt there will be any change any time soon though because the way the EU is structured Franch citizens essentially have votes that are worth more then German or British citizens. Each of the big countries get equal numbers of votes but the French have fewer citizens.

[Whaleboy]

Its probably the most idiotic of all schemes I've ever seen. Taxpayers pay farmers to produce food that we could import from people at a fraction of the cost. Those people are starving because of the political clout that a few thousand people, who would cope if their industry collapsed, as opposed to entire communities and peoples that have no money, no social security safety net and no jobs to fall back on if theirs falls through. The injustice the CAP perpetuates is frankly offensive.