Growing rift? UK+Europe

[DanS]

Indeed in this age where the means of aquiring terrible destuction (WMD's etc.) are easier to get than ever before I suggest that the european project of pooled sovereignty and the application of the rule of law between states is probably the most important project humanity is undertaking.

That is way too high minded for my tastes, but you're welcome to the view. Europe has been defanged by allied occupation, NATO, and the shared economic interests of the common European market. Further integration is unneccessary to this cause, even though I think it's a good idea for other reasons. I chuckle at the thought that further EU integration is based on some grand ideal that Europe is bestowing on the world.

[Krill]

if the Rosbifs had it their way, it would be a catastrophe for Europe.

Why would it be bad for Europe? (honest question. I have no idea if it would be good or bad...)

[DanS]

As Chirac weakened the UK, the UK couldn't push for its own vision of the European future. And this is absolutely essential for the decades to come.

This is pretty funny. The EU of today is 25 members. No one member has very much power, even if it leads a faction. Chirac has spun his self-image (and likewise his view of the UK) into gargantuan outsized proportions versus reality.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Why not just enter an agreement with the US and Japan to kill agricultural subsidies? That would half third world poverty over night,

Acutally, it would not. All those 3rd world farmers would very soon find themselves losing their land, by hook or by crook, as global agrobiz and local elites conspired to take it all. The lucky ones might have futuer jobs as agricultural workres, while the rest will be packed off to the shanty towns.

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
I chuckle at the thought that further EU integration is based on some grand ideal that Europe is bestowing on the world.

Chuckle all you want, europe has led the world in governmental systems for at least half a millenium - it's not really a 'grand ideal' more like the evolution of systems of government to cope with the different world we now find ourselves in.
The idea of the nation-state that orginiated in europe wasn't thought up on some 'grand ideal' - it developed from changed situations on the ground, that is one reason why it was a world-conquoring idea.
I find it amusing that someone who espouses the free market in goods and services assumes that changes in political organization between states has to be guided by a 'grand ideal'

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Krill
Why would it be bad for Europe? (honest question. I have no idea if it would be good or bad...)

What I call the "British vision for Europe" isn't what was debated these two days (it isn't about the CAP and the rebate). The British vision for Europe is an Europe that is mostly (or only) about free trade, and nothing/little else.

The reason why I think this vision is terrible for Europe is the following:

1. Economic competition without a sense of common bondage has a good chance of degenerating into rivalry and jingoism from the population, as the population must fear competition from abroad. Already in the French Non campaign, the underpaid Pole worker was harshly stigmatized. History teaches us that Europe + jingosim is a very, very dangerous combination. No thanks.

2. As time passes, and as new powers rise, the US will probably be increasingly egoistical in the defense of its geopolitical interests (simply because the US will try to defend an ever weakened power). If the European countries want to defend their own geopolitical interests, they'll have to harmonize them to succeed. If there is no harmonization, the European stance will explode whenever there is a disagreement, which will be the joy of our rivals.

3. Western Europe largely has a homogenous economy, with similar growth sectors, with similar education levels, and relatively similar infrastructure. The fragmentation of the economic policies makes little to no sense, and it's exploited shamelessly by those which play a country against another.
The 1993 currency crisis was a good example of it. Speculators played on the fact that Europe was chock-full of relatively powerless currencies, and that no common monetary policy existed, and they made the worst European financial crisis in recent history. Millions of unemployed emerged from this. The Euro makes intra-European speculation impossible now, and it contributed to shield us from the Asian economic crisis.

A common monetary policy makes sense, but it only makes sense if we also have a common economic (public budget) policy. Otherwise, there will be a grave imbalance between national economic policies and the European monetary policy. It is also bound to create frustration, as some countries will whine that the others have too low taxes, while the other countries will whine that the former ones don't have enough budgetary discipline. Though there are usual suspects, the roles do change: Germany did both.

4. A free-trade Europe where decisions are taken by diplomats is horribly antidemocratic. Typically, diplomats represent the interests of their country or of their leaders (especially the short term interests), rather than what the population stands for. For all its flaws, a Parliamentary system is much more representative of what people think. But the adoption of a Parliamentary system would mean the rule of the majority, and it would mean an unacceptable loss of sovereignty for the British government.
The sovereignty concerns are the main reason why Europe is still so antidemocratic today, with a Parliament that is the least important of the 3 institutions.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
This is pretty funny. The EU of today is 25 members. No one member has very much power, even if it leads a faction. Chirac has spun his self-image (and likewise his view of the UK) into gargantuan outsized proportions versus reality.

Not exactly. With each country having a veto, each country can be immensely powerful. Yes, even Cyprus.

The smaller States will be generally more prone to compromise, and thus they don't abuse this immense power, unlike the bigger States.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Chirac is extremely small-minded, but this time the weakening of the UK was essential for Europe's future.

After the French Non and Schröder's stunning defeat, the British could have more easily pushed for a European future that matches a British perspective. The British perspective flys radically in the face of many European countries (including France and Germany), and if the Rosbifs had it their way, it would be a catastrophe for Europe.

As Chirac weakened the UK, the UK couldn't push for its own vision of the European future. And this is absolutely essential for the decades to come.

Chirac

I take it you oppose Turkey joining?

It's a win-win situation for Turkey in any case; it's not worth their while joining a club controlled by bunch of reactionary bumpkins.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sandman
I take it you oppose Turkey joining?

I want Turkey to join, but only once Europe is ready. I'm sure Turkey will be ready for European membership much, much sooner before we agree to reform our institutions so that we remain functional after accepting the Turks.

I also wish we could wait for the Eastern economies to catch up with the West, before adding a population that is about as high as the latest enlargment's, and that is much, much poorer.

[DanS]

Originally posted by el freako


Chuckle all you want, europe has led the world in governmental systems for at least half a millenium - it's not really a 'grand ideal' more like the evolution of systems of government to cope with the different world we now find ourselves in.
The idea of the nation-state that orginiated in europe wasn't thought up on some 'grand ideal' - it developed from changed situations on the ground, that is one reason why it was a world-conquoring idea.
I find it amusing that someone who espouses the free market in goods and services assumes that changes in political organization between states has to be guided by a 'grand ideal'

Congratulations. Sometime in the future, the EU may form a weak confederacy.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Not exactly. With each country having a veto, each country can be immensely powerful. Yes, even Cyprus.

The smaller States will be generally more prone to compromise, and thus they don't abuse this immense power, unlike the bigger States.

Chirac is behaving as though France or the UK has the power to drive the ship, which is an antiquated view. Even leaving aside the veto, power is much more diffuse now. Spending even a bit of energy on attacking the UK is ridiculous in this context.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
Chirac is behaving as though France or the UK has the power to drive the ship, which is an antiquated view. Even leaving aside the veto, power is much more diffuse now.

Power is much more diffuse now, but the vision for Europe is largely bilateral (two sides, despite nuances in each side), with Britain acting as the champion of one side, and France/Germany acting as the champion of the other side.

With France and Germany weakened, Luxemburg, Greece or Belgium couldn't have done much to promote the Superstate Europe. With Britain weakened, Latvia couldn't do much to promote a free-trade Europe.

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
Congratulations. Sometime in the future, the EU may form a weak confederacy.

And had you been there you would have scoffed at the idea of a nation-state

By dismissing what is happening in europe in such a way you sadly only show your ignorance of the subject - you have a good mind DanS, you should use it.

[DanS]

The "French" vision for Europe is dead. The French voter killed it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
The "French" vision for Europe is dead. The French voter killed it.

How?