Growing rift? UK+Europe

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Drogue
That the EU shouldn't work? The EU has and always will be run by national politics, because it's the national voters that decide whether the politicians stay or go. These voters don't care (at least here) about high minded unification ideas of the political elite, they care about money, and where it's going.

Sure national politics plays a role. But when having 25 or even more members it seems pretty obvious that no nation can get its ideas through to 100% in all aspects.

[Drogue]

But why would a nation agree to something it doesn't agree with?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DAVOUT

The nonsense would be to rely on the UK to save the EU. The UK did not participate in the creation, it implored to join when it realized the potentialities of the Union, only in order to prevent a political association.

The UK joined because it liked the idea of a common market because that's what the EEC was when it joined. The EU didn't come until later and I note that the UK didn't veto its formation which it had the power to do. Sure, it influenced the EU in ways to make it more friendly to Anglo-Saxon market ideas but it didn't stop the EEC from turning into the EU.

Currently France and Germany are walking through the wilderness of high unemployment and very low growth. Eventually they will each have a Thatcher like figure who free up their economies and get things growing again. It will cause pain in the short run but in the long run it will be better for all of Europe to have a strong economy.

[Odin]

As Spiffor and I have said in other threads, the EU needs a unified economic policy so companies can't send member countries into a Welfare/Regulation cutting comptition that only helps corporate elities. It is near impossible to stop outsourcing to developing countries whether you have social-democrat or neo-liberal economies unless you want everyone in the EU to be payed $1/hr, so that argument from the neo-libs is moot.

[BeBMan]

But why would a nation agree to something it doesn't agree with?

Currently there's no way to change that, if one nation does not agree it vetoes, end of story. But sooner or later we have to come to a majority rule, then it is something else. Tf this is introduced by all, they also would have to accept the resulting decisions then, even if they do not agree - just the same way the minority has to accept the (democratic) rule of a majority on a national level.

[Dinner]

So Odin, you're claiming France should help its national economy by erecting trade and investment barriers against the other members of the EU? That's just not very smart nor is it good economics.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Odin
As Spiffor and I have said in other threads, the EU needs a unified economic policy so companies can't send member countries into a Welfare/Regulation cutting comptition that only helps corporate elities. It is near impossible to stop outsourcing to developing countries whether you have social-democrat or neo-liberal economies unless you want everyone in the EU to be payed $1/hr, so that argument from the neo-libs is moot.

But at what level? Should the German's and French lower their benefits to the UK level causing unrest there, or should we raise ours and become less economically viable compared to the US?

And it's not a simple cost thing with developing economies. There's huge transport and communication costs involved, which is why most firms don't do it for many things. Higher wages and more regulation makes firms that haven't outsourced more likely to.

If it's just about cost, why don't *all* companies outsource? Because it's costly. The more costly labour is here, the more outsourcing. It's not a bad thing, but it's a fact.

The big problem is that the French, German's and the UK have fundamental differences in their attitude to work and the economy. None of us will budge, so a unified economic policy is impossible.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by BeBro
Currently there's no way to change that, if one nation does not agree it vetoes, end of story. But sooner or later we have to come to a majority rule, then it is something else. Tf this is introduced by all, they also would have to accept the resulting decisions then, even if they do not agree - just the same way the minority has to accept the (democratic) rule of a majority on a national level.

Except it won't happen, because in order for the UK to accept that, we'd have to have a referendum, and the UK populace aren't about to agree to hand over sovereignty.

We need Spiffor's 2 stage system - an EU for those that want to integrate and an EEC for those that don't.

The EU is like a tax system where a country can opt out or in completely. Either they get to use the services (CAP, structural programmes, etc.) and they pay, or they don't. In tax, there isn't a choice, so those who do better by paying for it themselves don't get to. In the EU, a nation can opt out. If we have QMV on lots of things, it's in the interest of rich countries not to be part of the EU, as they pay more than they gain. They'll opt out. Since you can't force a country to stay there, it won't be feasible.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Drogue

The big problem is that the French, German's and the UK have fundamental differences in their attitude to work and the economy. None of us will budge, so a unified economic policy is impossible.

I can agree with that.

Consequently the political Europe will not include the UK. And the EU will be reduced to a trading zone applying the WTC rules. No longer PAC, no longer a rebate, only the joy of free trade; happy?

[Drogue]

Yep Though we may be able to keep free movement as well as no trade barriers, even if just as a bilateral agreement.

As much as I love Europe, it's not a good thing for the UK at the moment to try and align themselves, economically or politically, with France and Germany. Co-operation is better than integration, IMHO.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Drogue
Yep Though we may be able to keep free movement as well as no trade barriers, even if just as a bilateral agreement.

As much as I love Europe, it's not a good thing for the UK at the moment to try and align themselves, economically or politically, with France and Germany. Co-operation is better than integration, IMHO.

Ok for free movement, provided they are organized as they are by the US : list of passengers in trains and cars including 75 datas about identity, destination, sexual preferences, education, dresses, family, friends, profession, religion, tastes, experiences, opinions, political habit, health, last wishes, etc, must be transmitted 96 hours before the trip, if the trip is not cancelled by the European authority in charge of controlling Brits free movements (ECBFMA).

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


I can agree with that.

Consequently the political Europe will not include the UK. And the EU will be reduced to a trading zone applying the WTC rules. No longer PAC, no longer a rebate, only the joy of free trade; happy?

As long as germany and france keeps their hopeless policies toward work and farming, I don't see a chance for further political concensus in eu.

Protecting workers rights is fine but if the restrictions are so harsh that companies doesn't dare to hire people, they just makes things worse.

I also wonder how long france expects to keep their farmers on social welfare.

[Thorgal]

Yep Though we may be able to keep free movement as well as no trade barriers, even if just as a bilateral agreement.

As much as I love Europe, it's not a good thing for the UK at the moment to try and align themselves, economically or politically, with France and Germany. Co-operation is better than integration, IMHO.

But EU is not for whatever UK wants and more important, that is NOT the spirit of the Unique European Act that was signed (UK too) and aproved back in 1986. So What are UK doing in the EU? Maybe it is too cold out? I encourage britishers to have cojones to vote for some dumbass who put you out of EU. I would like to see how things works for UK there. Surely they will try to make some EFTA 2 with Iceland or something...


(A bit of history: UK first tried to build his own EEC (EFTA,) to fight the EEC but it was clear that the EFTA had not enough power and could not compete with the CEE, because this, UK requested to be admited in the EEC but his request was declined along many years until 1973 after De Gaulle resigned (a wise man at least in this topic). Since then UK have been fattening, being the poorest EEC member in the first years is now a rich member, and by the way it has been obstructing the EU at all levels. UK didnt vote against the Unique European Act (the EU) becuase it was above all, an essential reform to reach an unified and really profitable market in despite of political and social aspects UK didnt like)

[Drogue]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Ok for free movement, provided they are organized as they are by the US : list of passengers in trains and cars including 75 datas about identity, destination, sexual preferences, education, dresses, family, friends, profession, religion, tastes, experiences, opinions, political habit, health, last wishes, etc, must be transmitted 96 hours before the trip, if the trip is not cancelled by the European authority in charge of controlling Brits free movements (ECBFMA).

French burocracy. Ya gotta love it

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Thorgal
But EU is not for whatever UK wants and more important, that is NOT the spirit of the Unique European Act that was signed (UK too) and aproved back in 1986.

To the UK, it is. The politicians signed it, because they believed in an EU. The UK voters don't, however. They want the free trade, so they live with the rest, but yes, the UK citizens want to keep the things they like and want to remove the things we don't, as every country does. Every country uses the EU for whatever it wants, and tries to stop what it doesn't. It's what the EU's been for as long as I can remember, and is why we granted the veto's in the first place.

The French don't block any reform of the CAP because of ideology, they block it because they gain a lot from it. Their voters want it. In the end, in a democracy, almost everything comes down to what the voters want. That's why each country goes for what it wants and tries to stop the rest - it's people wouldn't stand for anything else.