Growing rift? UK+Europe

[BeBMan]

What I want to know is why many in the UK are so much (as it seems - correct me if I'm wrong) against further integration. What exactly is so bad about the idea generally, and in the long term? The only reason I can imagine that currently the biggest supporters (France and Germany) of more integration are economically in bad shape. This is a point I could understand, but the rest seem to be more psychologic barriers. To give an example what I mean, similar things were going on when the Euro came - lot's of panic and whining about how we are losing the D-Mark, and how much of a disaster that would be, but today it appears all rather ridiculous. Sure, some things became more expensive, but others became cheaper. And nobody really wants to go back to national currencies, even that Italian idea recently wasn't really serious.

Oh and further integration does not automatically mean superstate. Both extreme POVs (only free trade zone or only superstate) seem rather dubious to me.

[MikeH]

I have no idea, I assume it's basic xenophobia.

I'm highly in favour of more integration - but I'm also in favour of EU reform.

At the moment there are some structural problems, the elected body isn't powerful enough, the CAP needs to go etc.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MikeH
I'm highly in favour of more integration - but I'm also in favour of EU reform.

At the moment there are some structural problems, the elected body isn't powerful enough, the CAP needs to go etc.

(save for the CAP: it needs to be seriously reformed, but the modernisation of agriculture, especially in the East, should be among the EU's aims, like the modernisation of infrastructure)

[MikeH]

Severe reform is an option but I'd throw it away entirely. Let our farmers compete on a level playing field with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Admitting both wouldn't be too much in the long term. Admitting both now (or soon) would be way too much, since we are years from a geuine integration of the new members.

The Constitution, wich was the most ambitious programme to reform the European institutions ever, was a failure. The constitution's mission was to make the EU less unwieldy now that we're 25, but it didn't adress the real blocking points of the institutional arrangements. It also just got shot down by two referenda out of three, and the No is rapidly rising elsewhere.

We'll need time for a EU that can be functional enough, flexible enough, and economically homogenous enough, that we can continue the EU's expansion. If we continue to expand at an overly high pace, the EU won't be able to make any progress, and will be stuck with the statu quo (and the statu quo sucks, from every perspective).

I don't want to see a EU that will remain stuck for decades until it becomes fully irrelevant. If we are to consolidate our Union, we must avoid the increased inefficiencies and the increased rivalries, that can only come with the current system as it enlarges.

I disagree. Only by taking on new members can the impetus for reform be sustained. What if Turkey or Ukraine meet the conditions, wait patiently for ten years for the EU to be right for them, and then suddenly get told that they're still not welcome?

Expansion should be the EU's top priority. Integration should not be allowed to slow it down.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sandman
I disagree. Only by taking on new members can the impetus for reform be sustained.

Could you please explicit what you mean by that? From my perspective, every new member makes reform increasingly difficult, at least as long as reforms need unanimity. You just have to look at the latest enlargement: though the enlargement made institutional reform absolutely indispensable, we haven't seen any significant change that would turn the EU-25 into wieldly institution. All ambitious and unambitious attempts have been killed by one country or another.

What if Turkey or Ukraine meet the conditions, wait patiently for ten years for the EU to be right for them, and then suddenly get told that they're still not welcome?

That's another matter. The EU has a strict engagement with Turkey now, and it must be respected. I don't see why we should make a similar engagement for Ukraine.

Expansion should be the EU's top priority. Integration should not be allowed to slow it down.

What exactly is your aim with expansion?

[Micha]

Originally posted by Spiffor
What exactly is your aim with expansion?

World Domination

There´s a nice saying that goes "Power is nothing without control."
It can be easily refitted for this matter: "Expansion is nothing without integration."

What purpose does a bloated Europe serve, whose members are in a posisition as contradictionary as possible? All huge political formations have dissolved because of internal dissent, so the first task of a strong political entity should be to consolidate what it has. Then, and only then, it can divert its attention to expansion.

[Sandman]

If the EU insists on reforming before admitting perfectly suitable countries, it creates a situation whereby people who oppose EU expansion can simply block reform to ensure that no new countries join.

Besides, what's the effective difference between a 25 member EU and a 32 member EU where all the members have vetoes?

My aim with expansion is promoting democracy and good governance throughout the regions neighbouring the EU. It's also good for the EU's reputation to be seen as a club rather than a clique.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Sandman

My aim with expansion is promoting democracy and good governance throughout the regions neighbouring the EU.

Unfortunately, you cannot do that without the agreement of the people of the present members. And the people does not want. You are confusing the Bush method based on force with the european method based on consensus.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sandman
Besides, what's the effective difference between a 25 member EU and a 32 member EU where all the members have vetoes?

A similar difference as between a 15 members EU and a 25 members EU. Or between a 6 members EEC and a 12 members EEC.

The more countries you add, the more particular interests you have to take into account. Also, the more risk you have to be stuck because of some national trauma (Britand an sovereignty, France/Poland and religion, Germany and monetary stability, Turkey and democratic values, some countries and animal rights, etc.)

Whenever you add an actor that has a veto, you create an increasing inertia, which is patently absurd in a world that evolves faster and faster. The veto power is the main thing that makes the EU's decision-making as sucky as it is now. Either you remove plenty of competences to the EU, so that unanimity becomes a viable decision-making scheme, or you keep the current competences and you remove the veto.

We already have too many members for our institutional arragements btw. It was very difficult to do something when we were 15. It's now outright impossible to make any ambitious changes now that we're 25.


I personally don't want the EU to become like 18th century Poland.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

A similar difference as between a 15 members EU and a 25 members EU. Or between a 6 members EEC and a 12 members EEC.

The more countries you add, the more particular interests you have to take into account. Also, the more risk you have to be stuck because of some national trauma (Britand an sovereignty, France/Poland and religion, Germany and monetary stability, Turkey and democratic values, some countries and animal rights, etc.)

Whenever you add an actor that has a veto, you create an increasing inertia, which is patently absurd in a world that evolves faster and faster. The veto power is the main thing that makes the EU's decision-making as sucky as it is now. Either you remove plenty of competences to the EU, so that unanimity becomes a viable decision-making scheme, or you keep the current competences and you remove the veto.

We already have too many members for our institutional arragements btw. It was very difficult to do something when we were 15. It's now outright impossible to make any ambitious changes now that we're 25.


I personally don't want the EU to become like 18th century Poland.

Excellent explanation Spiffor.

[Saras]

18th century Poland-Lithuania

[Spiffor]

18th century Poland-Lithuania's Liberum Veto

[Spiffor]

Btw Saras, shouldn't that be
"18th century Poland-Lithuania -"

[Saras]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Btw Saras, shouldn't that be
"18th century Poland-Lithuania -"

Well... we did have some good things going...