The future of the EU

[Roland]

Hoek:

I would not mind your ignorance, but your accompanying arrogance is a bit much. I'll just point out 3 things from your idiotic ramblings:

"The EU convention on human rights is not recognized as international law for countries outside the EU, and Turkey is not part of the EU."

I was talking about the ECHR, wasn't I ? Which is part of the legal framework of the council of europe, not the EU.

"I notice your baseline figure was '48, not '45"

Because the Marshall Plan started in 1948 ?

"You think Europe was equal to the United States? That is such a laugh. The U.S. economy was half of the entire world economy immediately following the war, so don't even try it."

Look! You got one fact right. Just that it is completely irrelevant on the issue of quantity of the Marshall plan funds compared to western european economies. Around 1950 US GDP was maybe twice that of western europe. Where did you get the idea I said Europe was economically equal to the US after WWII ? You have a serious reading comprehension problem.

I'd also be waiting for you to address your obvious lack of knowledge about EU legislation, but I doubt you can contribute anything useful there.

[Roland]

Dan:

Just for the top of the iceberg:

The Government generally respected its citizens' human rights in a number of areas; however, its record was poor in several other areas, and
serious problems remain. Extrajudicial killings continued, including deaths due to excessive use of force. Unlike the previous year, there were no
deaths in detention due to torture and no reports of mystery killings and disappearances of political activists. Although the authorities failed to
investigate adequately many past disappearances, ongoing investigation of the Turkish Hizbullah terrorist organization may lead to resolution of
some cases. Torture, beatings, and other abuses by security forces remained widespread. Police and Jandarma often employed torture and
abused detainees during incommunicado detention and interrogation. The lack of universal and immediate access to an attorney, long detention
periods for those held for political crimes (especially in the state of emergency region), and a culture of impunity are major factors in the
commission of torture by police and other security forces. In addition the general climate of violence engendered by the PKK insurgency and
urban leftist and Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, combined with a confession-oriented trial system, have hampered past efforts to carry out legal
prohibitions against torture. With the decrease in counter-terror operations and overall detentions in the southeast, fewer cases of abuse of
detainees were reported; however, the proportion of cases of abuse remained at high levels, and many cases go unreported.

And that source should not be suspected of being unfriendly against Turkey.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/eur/index.cfm?docid=844

[Solly]

Originally posted by Hoek
Stew:



So what, exactly, were the first and second most imporant contributions? Britain was ready to give up by '41, and Russia would have lost without a second front. Oh, also, lend-lease gave both of them both free weapons.

The U.S. was the arsenal of democracy, and Britain and France were the cannon fodder of democracy. When was the last time France has actually won a war? I think it's been >200 years (the American Revolution). They are the most ******** soldiers in the world.

I'm not going into this here as i) this isn't the right thread, and ii) I'm no great expert on military matters.

Let's just say you could say what you're saying here with a little more tact than you probably use when talking to Americans about this - just an idea.

[Hoek]

"I was talking about the ECHR, wasn't I ? Which is part of the legal framework of the council of europe, not the EU."

My bad. At least I'm able to recognize when I'm wrong.

"Because the Marshall Plan started in 1948 ?"

The U.S. provided significant economic aide prior to '48, not to mention that none of you had to worry about maintaining a military.

"Just that it is completely irrelevant on the issue of quantity of the Marshall plan funds compared to western european economies."

It shows that Europe was not at all equal to the U.S. You call it arrogance, I call it a founded conclusion. During the 45-49 time period, the U.S. was a sole superpower.

"I'd also be waiting for you to address your obvious lack of knowledge about EU legislation, but I doubt you can contribute anything useful there."

I do not know every law the EU has passed, but I do understand the general framework. There is significant regulation of telecom, but that is one industry, and economic regulation in general is still by far in the hands of the countries, not the EU. This is not true in the United States. The degree of economic integration is somewhere between NAFTA and the U.S., but much closer to NAFTA.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Roland
I was talking about the ECHR, wasn't I ? Which is part of the legal framework of the council of europe, not the EU.

Which Turkey was signatory to before Austria. Obviously, Turkey is more European than Austria.

Wrt to the State Dept. report, yes that is exactly the bad part of the mixed bag I was talking about.

[Hoek]

I would use more tact if I was trying to convince someone of something. I'm not, though. I argue my points mainly to test myself-to see what holes exist in my opinions. On the issue of the American contribution to World War II, you're the one who asked me what the **** I was talking about, which is no less tactful than sayin that French soldiers have no dicks.

[Hoek]

Let me say this, though. I do greatly appreciate Britain's friendship. Blair has been a big help to the U.S. in international politics, and has served as an important link between the U.S. and the rest of Europe. They have proven themselves as an ally like no other european country has. Generally, the British have been far less arrogant than the French, for instance. I don't know how the British feel about the French, but most of us in the U.S. really don't like them. Time and again, they have proven themselves unworthy of any assistance from the U.S. How many times have they delibrately undermined our foreign policy while we gave them military cover?

[Roland]

Good.... sorry for the burst.

"The U.S. provided significant economic aide prior to '48"

Some aide, but if you take western germany, at least in the british and esp the french zones, there was also a continued destruction and depatriation of infrustructure and plants. On the other hand, most of the capital stock was still intact - the worst hits had been to transport strcuture. 1946/47 saw a strong rebound eg in coal mining - and some setbacks as well. It is simply a gross exaggeration to grant US aid with the basic recovery - shown in the simple fact that until the mid 50s there was a strong rebound in the developped eastern bloc countries too.

"not to mention that none of you had to worry about maintaining a military."

Britain and France continued/started spending again, eg on the Indochina war. The US taking over most of the cost there was quite late.

"It shows that Europe was not at all equal to the U.S."

Again no issue there. My point is that compared to economic output, the Marshall plan was quite small in volume. This has nothing to do with the relative sizes of the US vs euroepan economies.

"There is significant regulation of telecom, but that is one industry, and economic regulation in general is still by far in the hands of the countries, not the EU. This is not true in the United States."

Despite the interstate commerce clause there is still a good deal of state legislation. Competition law, monetary policy, the acquis is covering a lot of issues.

"The degree of economic integration is somewhere between NAFTA and the U.S., but much closer to NAFTA."

NAFTA is just a free trade area. The EU is far closer to the US federal government in economic regulation. NAFTA doesn't even have secondary legislative power, or does it ?

[Roland]

"They have proven themselves as an ally like no other european country has. Generally, the British have been far less arrogant than the French, for instance."

Britain has been towing the US line but some key capabilities (like nuclear) depend on the US. The French are just independence-minded, not arrogant.

[Hoek]

My opinion of France is dictated largely by my History reading. They so often ****ed up U.S. foreign policy, and De Gaulle was so arrogant (not to mention the pre-WWII leaders). When I visited Paris, most kids seemed to really like the U.S., though. The kids are obviously more reasonable

You probably know about as much specific information about U.S. economic authority as I know about EU legislation. Ask any political scientist, and he or she would tell you how relatively little authority the EU has compared to the U.S. Most agreements revolve around trade and immigration, though authority is expanding. They still have a long, long way to go before having an integrated economy.

Also, dollar figures are misleading. The United States also provided alot (ALOT) of technical and agricultural assistance that was not in pure dollars. It was this agricultural assistance to Greece that kept the people from starving and this techinical assistance that helped Europe get on its feet quickly.

[Dauphin]

So what, exactly, were the first and second most imporant contributions? Britain was ready to give up by '41, and Russia would have lost without a second front. Oh, also, lend-lease gave both of them both free weapons.

The U.S. was the arsenal of democracy, and Britain and France were the cannon fodder of democracy. When was the last time France has actually won a war? I think it's been >200 years (the American Revolution). They are the most ******** soldiers in the world.

Is this a troll?

[Hoek]

No, its just me not being polite about the French.

[Bas]

Just for the record: I haven't been anti-Turkish here, just pointing out that they are still not near meeting the criteria for admission to the EU. Roland has kindly provided some of the facts that I was too lazy to search for And they have to meet the same criteria as all the other candidate states, it's not that the criteria are adjusted every time to keep Turkey out, like you seem to insinuate.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Hoek
No, its just me not being polite about the French.

Carry on.

[Roland]

Hoek:

"I would use more tact if I was trying to convince someone of something. I'm not, though. I argue my points mainly to test myself-to see what holes exist in my opinions."

Odd, seems I overread this yesterday. In that case I can really do a lot for you.

On economic aid:

"Also, dollar figures are misleading."

Yes, because the dollar was overvalued at the time.

"The United States also provided alot (ALOT) of technical and agricultural assistance that was not in pure dollars."

Most of the Marshall plan aid was in the form of credit to buy food, equipment etc from the US.

"...and this techinical assistance that helped Europe get on its feet quickly."

Was the Marshall plan and other assistence a great help ? Yes. Put that feather on your cap if you must.

Was it crucial for economic recovery ? No. As evidenced by the relative small size and the strong recovery in non-CEEC/OEEC countries.

There were several other problems. Currency overhang, refugees etc. In the Trizone, currency reform was more important than the Marshall plan. The US made a big contribution btw in the 1948 introdution of the D-Mark. Another feather if you want. But don't give me that braindead chauvinistic "America rebuilt europe" crap.

On the EU:

"You probably know about as much specific information about U.S. economic authority as I know about EU legislation."

You are virtually clueless about the EU, and accusing me of similar lack of knowledge is quite insulting. I'm not familiar with US regulatory detail, but have a rough idea of the constitutional and practical distribution of powers.

Let's take for example electricity market deregulation: There is a single EU framework for that, just like the telecom one that you were completely unaware of. There is no such federal legislation in the US.

There is a far reaching Acquis on all public procurement, especially on legal standards and legal review. I'm not aware of a similar piece of US federal legislation that extends to the states and local governments.

There is the state aid regime under which every state subsidy must be notified to the Commission and can be ruled out by the commission. I'm not aware of a similar US federal law.

"Ask any political scientist, and he or she would tell you how relatively little authority the EU has compared to the U.S."

Odd.. usually political scientists ask me about EU law not the other way round. For political science, the integrationist apporach, the treaty-making process, the EU legislative process, Comitology, crises management (empty chair, Solange I, ban on beef...) are the interesting things; the authority as in regulatory power and actual legislation is just a starting point for their work - yet a centerpoint of my work.

"Most agreements revolve around trade and immigration"

You are showing another hole big enough to drive a truck through. Agreements ? Bollocks. We are talking mostly about legislation here; only few sectors are directly regulated in the treaties. "Trade" - can we be a bit more specific ? NAFTA is a free trade area with rules of origin; the EU is a customs union with free movement of goods, capital and people. If you refer to outside trade representation (like WTO), that is an exclusive Community power. "Immigration" - Free movement of EU citizens within the EU, the Schengen acquis - but immigration (stays exceeding 3 months) of non-EU nationals is still a national matter.

"They still have a long, long way to go before having an integrated economy."

Define "integrated". Tell me which steps would be required to economically "integrate" the EU to US levels. If you could be arsed to read a textbook about EU economic law you might be a bit surprised ...