[No title]

[wintertime]

~X(

Has there ever been a bigger waste of time and money than the European Union?Never able year after year to sign off on their budget it is a masterclass in waste.They are all parasites who force their warped idea's on us all in the form of crazy laws.
Come back Guy Fawkes.Do it right this time.

 

[gaybot9000]

oh hi you must be british

sorry but having 51 states would just look retarded

seriously though, europe has no future if it is not united

india can do it

china can do it

and it goes without saying that america can do it (although to be fair, it's easy for us having a single language and culture)

so what's europe's problem? oh right! that whole cult of nationalism

protip: this isn't the 19th century anymore. it's the 21st. get with the times

 

[weydowner]

Seeing the state of of coalition politics in GB, I think it is remarkable that 25 (is it? ) countries with different systems can be united & not at each others throats, as has happened in Europe for the last 2000+ years. I reckon that some war would have broken out in Europe in my life-time, so instead, we're lumbered with a monster bureaucracy that nobody wants in its present state.
could have been worse though.

Like all bureaucracies it has to grow & grow. It is better than the UN, at least.

You're truly right about the budget; I think we need one of the totally moral & efficient accountancy firms like the one who audited the major Banks & Financial Companies.

(irony)

 

[gb2000ie]

~X(

Has there ever been a bigger waste of time and money than the European Union?Never able year after year to sign off on their budget it is a masterclass in waste.They are all parasites who force their warped idea's on us all in the form of crazy laws.
Come back Guy Fawkes.Do it right this time.

I beg to differ. The EU has opened up all our borders so we can all trade freely throughout Europe. You are must be too young to remember the days when British companies had to pay import duties on everything they sold in France or Germany or anywhere else in Europe. This made it really hard for British exports to compete. As well as making it easier for all businesses in the entire EU to do business and to expand, and hence helping to make us all richer, there is the fact that you don't go to war with your trading partners because that's against your own interest. For the first time in a log time, we have a stable, peaceful and prosperous Europe. If the EU did nothing else, it would already have achieved a lot. But of course it has done a lot more.

The EU has helped Europe to develop by building roads, railways, and other important infrastructure. It has helped countries like Ireland join the first world (sadly it couldn't stop us destroying ourselves). It has managed to do a most astonishing balancing act - being both a protector of corporate rights - and driving a big wedge through the many state monopolies that blighted much of Europe, and, protecting the rights of individuals. I know that in Ireland we owe a lot of our workers and civil rights to the EU.

Also - the EU are exceptionally strong on consumer rights, and on breaking up dangerous monopolies. Just look at the new laws to curb the extortionate cost of mobile roaming in Europe. That really helps anyone who travels, be it for business, family, or pleasure.

I know the Euro is not universal across the entire EU - but it has made such a great difference to the many people like me who live their lives in a multitude of European countries. I spend time in Ireland, Belgium and Spain, and it's effortless. I can just move around freely, without having to change money.

I think we take a lot of what the EU has done for all of us for granted, mainly because it has no face. When the EU passes resolutions that help our rights as business, people, or consumers, it's up to each country to implement their own version of that law, so the credit goes to the local governments, not the EU. With the exception of those blue signs, we hardly ever see the EU's helping hand in the many infrastructure project that make our daily commutes easier, faster, and safer.

The EU has a very bad PR arm, and the Nationalistic extremist have a great PR arm, a poor combination. It makes it easy to spew vitriolic hot air like this, but that doesn't make for an actual, logical, or cogent argument against the EU. The worst criticism I have seen is that the EU is about as tied up in bureaucracy, red tape, and excess as every single other government in Europe. If it was easy to run government well, why has no one on earth managed to do it yet? I notice you're in the UK - do you feel your government is any better? People in glass houses .....

Also - we elect MEPs and our governments who we elect appoint the commision and our ministers who we elect through our parliaments form the council of ministers. We are all part of Europe - and we all get a say in how it's run. If you think the EU is so bad, what are you doing to get your politicians to do the right thing in Europe? It is a democracy - so you have to take responsibility for your part in it.

B.

 

[diklik]

I would only comment on one small facet of the EU, as related to me by those who live in the UK (England, to quell any errors in reference). The EU has forced all members to abide by various laws relating to civil rights, children's "rights", and other similar legislation. Not a terrible thing to unify similar nations with common laws. However, it's forced the UK to create laws within that neither allow nor abide adult porn that has any physical action other than actual sex......for fear of the label of violence. So now the videos of two or more adults spanking each other, or tying each other up and playing various stimulation games (all safe, sane and consensual), are now illegal to shoot, sell, trade or traffic on the internet in the UK.

If this were child porn, I'd be in total lockstep agreement. But this seems intrusive and busy-body like, a meddling in the internal affairs of how a country regulates adult entertainment and such. The official British government statement claims refuge in the new laws, binding all of the EU to the same standard. I wonder if anyone has ever visited the red light districts in some Netherlands, German and other cities ? - where any sex or other adult activity can be had for a price, and quite civilized they are about it, too.

As well, many parents in the UK claim that they are now prevented from properly disciplining their kids, if they choose to apply corporal punishment. I'm never in favour of beating kids, but a sound smack or two across the rump never harmed any bratty youngster. UK schools are a nightmare of violence directed at teachers and staff from undisciplined youth. Again, schools are disallowed from any form of physical intervention due to (they claim) the EU laws that Britain must follow.

Perhaps someone in the EU with first-hand knowledge could further comment.:?

 

[gb2000ie]

Perhaps someone in the EU with first-hand knowledge could further comment.:?

What you are talking about are EU directives - there are no EU laws. Each state within the EU has it's own unique justice system, all with their own quirks, practices and philosophies - so, it would be impossible to write laws at EU level and have them apply in these vastly varying jurisdictions.

Instead of the EU writing laws, the EU issues directives to the member states to draw up laws to achieve a certain agreed aim.

The German government and the British government are both writing laws to implement the same directives, but are doing it in different ways. If it is true that bondage films are legal elsewhere in Europe, then I smell BS in the British excuse above. The fact is that in the UK it is politically wise to blame all un-popular policies on the EU - they are the big bad boogey man!

I don't know the details of the bondage stuff, because in Ireland it has been illegal for as long as I can remember. As for beating kids - I know from first-hand experience that it is illegal to beat kids in school in both countries, and I think that is exactly how it should be. We should not be empowering teachers to physically abuse our kids! As for a slap around the ear at home, in Ireland that is legal, but beating a kid is not, that's considered child abuse.

Because the directive system adds an extra layer of indirection (idea → directive → law), there is quite a bit of wiggle-room, and there can be disagreements over meanings. Some of those disagreements are genuine, but a lot of far-right nationalists have fun intentionally mis-interpreting directives to make political hay.

I'm suspicious about the bondage thing because the UK have a history of internet censorship that 'leads' the way in Europe, way ahead of any directives. This strikes me as something that the UK government wanted to do anyway.

B.

 

[diklik]

What you are talking about are EU directives - there are no EU laws.....If it is true that bondage films are legal elsewhere in Europe, then I smell BS in the British excuse above. The fact is that in the UK it is politically wise to blame all un-popular policies on the EU - they are the big bad boogey man!

B.

Bart, I'd make you right on that one, from what I hear discussed with buddies in Britain. As for the spank/no-spank of kids, well that's a debate that has many up in arms on both sides of the fence. Not one for this venue, for sure. I have a good deal of knowledge and experience with the subject in terms of North America. If you wanna tilt at some of those windmills, hit me privately with an email and we can kick it around as much as you'd like. PM me for my private email if you'd like.

 

[ritsuka]

I'm quite surprised that someone in Ireland, which was forced to hold a second vote (with more money on the yes side this time) because they didn't approve of the Lisbon Treaty would go on about how democratic the EU is. Especially when the Lisbon treaty was just a forcing through of the proposed EU constitution which was already rejected by voters. The European Union leaves things up to the European government that America leaves to it's states to decide; it isn't comparable, and it isn't really necessary in it's current form. Getting to vote after the fact that the important decisions have already been made isn't much of a democracy in my opinion. While I'm absolutely in favor of children's rights and making corporal punishment illegal, the EU has yet to go that far.

The fact is that yes, the EU is all about radical neoliberal capitalism. Everyone is not benefiting from lifting trade barriers and opening national borders. Without a set consensus on the right of all workers to a living wage with good benefits throughout Europe, what this sets up is a situation where corporations can exploit cheap labor and reap maximum benefits for themselves, while driving down wages and leaving masses of regular people unemployed. The EU has also decided to setup similar economic demands as the IMF, mandating that marginal "European" countries like Greece and L____ make massive cuts to social services despite the democratic mandate of the citizens of those countries against the cuts. The enstatement of the Euro, as well, robs member countries of the right to handle their own currency in the way they please and shuts off many paths for getting out of the global financial crisis.

Not everyone in the EU has such a rosy view of the effect it has on member states; and it isn't because they're uninformed or just "right wing nationalists."

 

[gb2000ie]

I'm quite surprised that someone in Ireland, which was forced to hold a second vote (with more money on the yes side this time) because they didn't approve of the Lisbon Treaty would go on about how democratic the EU is.

Then you don't understand Irish politics. The Lisbon vote was a protest vote because the government were really un-popular, and they wanted people to vote yes. It was a referendum on the same government we just voted down to 20 seats from 78 when we were finally given a general election a little over a week ago.

Especially when the Lisbon treaty was just a forcing through of the proposed EU constitution which was already rejected by voters. The European Union leaves things up to the European government that America leaves to it's states to decide; it isn't comparable, and it isn't really necessary in it's current form. Getting to vote after the fact that the important decisions have already been made isn't much of a democracy in my opinion.

That's not what happened. There were problems to be solved, and it was thought that a nice way to solve them would be with a constitution - sooooo much simpler than the big collection of treaties we had then. The idea of a constitution scared the crap out of the nationalistic types, because that makes it sound like a united states of Europe - so there was pushback for that reason. There was also a big fuss about whether or not to include God in it.

In the end - the idea of a constitution was a bridge too far, but, the problems that needed solving still needed solving, so, rather than a constitution, a series of amendments to the existing treaties was compiled, and called the Lisbon treaty. That treaty passed every single vote in every single country in the EU legally.

Some nations like Ireland require a a referendum, some don't. Each nation has a right to choose how it governs itself. Not nation adopted Lisbon unconstitutionally, and all nations in the EU have democratically elected governments.

Also - the treaty actually increases the power of the parliament, giving more direct power to us, the people - I see it as a big step forward to make the EU more directly democratic actually.

The fact is that yes, the EU is all about radical neoliberal capitalism. Everyone is not benefiting from lifting trade barriers and opening national borders. Without a set consensus on the right of all workers to a living wage with good benefits throughout Europe, what this sets up is a situation where corporations can exploit cheap labor and reap maximum benefits for themselves, while driving down wages and leaving masses of regular people unemployed. The EU has also decided to setup similar economic demands as the IMF, mandating that marginal "European" countries like Greece and L____ make massive cuts to social services despite the democratic mandate of the citizens of those countries against the cuts. The enstatement of the Euro, as well, robs member countries of the right to handle their own currency in the way they please and shuts off many paths for getting out of the global financial crisis.

I actually think the EU gives us a very European brand of tempered and regulated capitalism, which balances rights much better than the US or indeed most other capitalist countries (except the Scandinavian countries, if you count them as capitalist at all).

As for the Euro robbing countries of things - that assumes it was forced on countries. It was not. If you didn't want the Euro, then you didn't join - just look at the UK. Every decision has an up and a down side. So did joining the Euro. All the countries that did made that decision - no one was robbed of anything, some countries chose to surrender some sovereignty in exchange for the benefits of the Euro, and some didn't.

Not everyone in the EU has such a rosy view of the effect it has on member states; and it isn't because they're uninformed or just "right wing nationalists."

I'm not saying the EU are perfect. No government is. I can see lots of room for improvement - but on balance, I think it has been a very positive force on our continent.

B.

 

[XMan101]

The EU is not democratic in my opinion. The elected members of the parliament have little power against the appointed unelected members of the commission - or the "gravy train" as it's known as. The amount of expenses those people can claim for themselves is disgusting, full of failed or self-serving ex-politicians , it's no wonder they clamour to join it.

If a state votes "no" , for whatever reason, you don't restage the election until you get a "yes"! It's beneficial for those self-serving individuals making up all this inner sanctum of the EU to have a Yes, so it was inevitable.

At best I call it a benign dictatorship, the general population have very little power or influence over it. I'm glad the UK kept its currency , I'm quite sure a lot of others have regretted losing theirs since.

I'm not anti-European, I'm anti-beaurcracy. I'm not saying the EU is all bad, in some ways it's been a good thing, but I'll not paint it as the be all and end all rosy picture some seem to think it is.

There is no such thing as true democracy, in fact I'd say it's pretty much an impossible concept in reality, usually spouted by the left leaning with a rosy glow about how everyone can have a say in things and life would be wonderful, sadly in practise it can't happen.

The world, and Europe, is now run by the money men and financial markets, nothing is going to stand in their way, all we can do is tweak a few things around the edges.

Despite everything it's still better than it was in the middle of the last century, we have more care for individuals in general than we ever used to have, we have more freedom of movement across the whole of Europe, I'd say we have a fairer society than we once did, a lot still needs to be done, but that's always going to be the case, and people like me will always be ranting about it )

As for the UK bondage issue, it's been a while since I last went into a sex dvd shop but as far as I remember there were bondage films available. The UK limits are probably more mild than elsewhere. It's only quite recently that more than 2 having sex together in a scene was allowed to be filmed in the UK and not that many years ago that hard core porn was even allowed to be sold at all - that's something I believe we have to thank the EU for We had the most restricted porn laws outside the Muslim world until then!

 

[gb2000ie]

Just for the non-Europeans, the EU government has three branches of legislators, and a court. The three branches of government are all democratic - but in three varying levels.

1) the European Parliament - this is the most directly democratic body, every person in Europe is represented by one or more MEPs who they directly elect. As Europe has evolved, this body has steadily been taking more power, which is a good trend. It's not hard to see that this body is the same as parliaments across Europe.
2) the council of ministers - this is literally the ministers in the elected governments around Europe - the prime ministers, the finance ministers etc.. This collection of governments are analogous to the government within a particular nation - they are not directly elected, are are indirectly formed from the people that are elected. Every nation forms a government, and those governments together are the council of ministers
3) the Commission - these guys are appointed by the elected governments within the member states. These guys are the department heads civil service of the EU. Unlike in most countries, where the civil service head-honchoes have jobs for life, and are not selected but instead make their way up through the ranks, these guys are appointed for fixed terms by the prime ministers in the various nations. They are the least directly democratically selected, but they are actually a little more accountable than their equivalents within the civil services within the member states. I know for sure that this is true with regard to the Irish and British Civil Services.

It's a bureaucracy that manges the impossible - to get people from 27 countries speaking 23 officially recognised languages to agree on things. When you are dealing with that level of diplomacy you get funny fudges that are needed to square the many circles, but I'd rather an army of diplomats and bureaucrats than soldiers!

I don't think the EU are a perfect organisation sent by God to create a utopia, but I am not blinded to the great deal of good effects it has had on my daily life, nor am I blinded to the messy reality of international politics. Given the difficulty of it's mission, I think the EU has done well.

I also don't think it's fair to say that the EU are 'them', that are 'us', we elect the MEPs, we elect the governments that form the council of ministers and we elect the national governments that elect the Prime Ministers that appoint the commissioners. At every level, they are people from our country, our nationals sit in the parliament, our government sits in the council of ministers, and our nationals who get appointed to the commission. We're all Europeans every bit as much as we are Irish, British, Spanish, Belgian, French, German, what ever.

We are not powerless - I contact all my elected representatives when I am pissed off about something, and THE most responsive have been my MEPs, they have also been the most successful at actually looking after my interests.

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

I wanted to do this as a separate post because it's a bit of a side topic - I just want to give a little more perspective on the Irish referenda on Lisbon. There is a lot of miss-understanding and miss-information being peddled about it. I hope you'll at least listen to what it looked like here on the ground before just deciding it was totalitarian or some such.

Our government made a complete mess of the first vote on Lisbon. They assumed the measure would just pass because they said so. Their attempts to inform the population were pathetic. We had our prime minister saying he hadn't bothered reading it himself, he let the civil service do that, since they negotiated it anyway. It was assumed that everyone would just vote yes because all the major political parties were in favour of it.

Coupled with this arrogance and incompetence was a very well run counter-campaign run by a group that just came out of nowhere and were run by a somewhat shady guy with ties to the US government and the arms trade. He came, he ran the anti-Lisbon campaign, and then he vanished off the face of Irish politics. It was most odd. Anyhow - his campaign were spreading out-right lies that scared the pants off people. If you believed their spin, Lisbon would mean compulsory abortions, compulsory conscription of Irish kids into a European army, and French control of our tax policy. None of this was actually in the treaty, but since it was a horribly complex doent, and since the prime minister hadn't bothered to read it, there was no credible correction of the record.

When it came to the vote - the electorate were confused, angry, and lied to. Turnout was pathetic, almost no one voted, and many who did vote either voted No in protest of the government's incompetence at running the referendum, or voted pro-life, despite the vote having nothing to do with abortion. The exit polls made for very interesting reading. There were people who voted No out of genuine disagreement with the actual contents of the treaty - they had some good valid objections too. But - the biggest group of No voters said it was a protest vote, and the next biggest group were voting to save Irish foetuses from a non-existent threat.

The government went back to Europe and asked for legally binding clarifications on the meaning of the treaty - this set in stone the fact that the treaty would have no effect on abortion rights, Irish Neutrality, and Irish tax law. Armed with these clarifications, a second vote was run. This time no one took the result for granted. There was more debate, more efforts to inform people, and a much bigger turnout for the actual vote.

The No vote had been a very close-run thing, the Yes vote was a much clearer and stronger result.

The absolute farce of Ireland voting twice has nothing to do with EU tyranny, and everything to do with Irish government incompetence and arrogance. Those referenda are an embarrassment, but to Ireland, not Europe.

Local Irish politics may not be easy for outsiders to understand, but that's what the Lisbon mess was about.

B.

 

[XMan101]

Thanks for your very enlightening explanation, Bart. I don't believe I've ever heard it explained before, but if that was the case I can certainly understand the reason for a re-run of the vote.

 

[ritsuka]

Not everyone in Ireland or Europe agrees with you on that. I've read many accounts from activists working on the NO campaign; they were not backed by a US conspiracy, but informed people going out and rejecting this deeply undemocratic, flawed doent. It is true there was a variety of reasons listed for voting NO, some coming from the political right on social issues or taxes, some from the left dealing with worker's rights (the working class soundly fell on the NO side regardless) and privatization; you might not agree with all of them, but a vote is still a vote, and since there was not fraud or irregularity involved, holding a second vote for the EU to get the result they wanted is completely illegitimate.

You can't have it both ways in saying this is a great democracy, but one that had to cirvent democracy at it's beginning because the people were too stupid to vote the correct way. It's even worse because the state the economy was in during the second Lisbon vote made people afraid enough to shift to the Yes side, as did the corporations and the catholic church that came out in support. Either you go with the democratic process in an open and accountable way, or you don't. Once a system is in place and running, it is extremely hard for people outside of the power circle to make fundamental changes to it (I should know, living in the U.S.) So many in the EU are screwed; because they are not the ones reaping the "benefits" accrued.

The Lisbon Treaty and the EU constitution were rejected by voters (first in France and the Netherlands, then in Ireland) because of the politics contained within the doents. Once regular people had rejected the EU constitution, it's unpopular measures were repackaged in order to cirvent democracy; only the heads of state had to ratify it in every other country but Ireland. Likewise with the Euro, it was not approved by a people's referendum; that is the problem with taking 'democracy' to a higher level where it does not consult the people for a fresh, specific mandate anymore. So local democratic deficiencies are thereby magnified into much larger ones.

 

[gb2000ie]

Not everyone in Ireland or Europe agrees with you on that. The Lisbon Treaty and the EU constitution were rejected by voters (first in France and the Netherlands, then in Ireland) because of the politics contained within the doents. Once regular people had rejected the EU constitution, it's unpopular measures were repackaged in order to cirvent democracy; only the heads of state had to ratify it in every other country but Ireland.

Lets set a few things straight - the EU constitution was abandoned after the votes. The EU had grown to the point that the old rules dating from when there were 12 countries were no longer workable. The simple fact is that change was needed. The first attempt at change was an over-reach, getting too close to nation-hood, i.e. a constitution. Having a constitution does a lot more than the practical things that needed doing. Two countries said no to the idea of a constitution, so it was dropped.

Dropping the constitution meant the original problems were still there, so, the practical stuff was re-packaged as amendments to the existing treaties, and called the treaty of Lisbon. It is not a constitution by another name, it's just an international treaty - it stops short of the connotations of nationhood that a constitution denotes. Bottom line - the EU had become un-manageable with the old rules devised for a much smaller union, so changes were needed, with the constitutional option gone, a smaller, less ambitious plan B was needed.

Now - as for this being un-democratic because it was done in accordance with the democratic constitutions of each and ever nation in the EU - that defies all logic. Different countries have different ways of running themselves. The whole concept behind representative democracy is that the people elect representatives to dedicate their lives to being informed on all the minutia of running the country, a full time job if ever there was one, so that those chosen experts can run the country on behalf of the people. That's not undemocratic at all - but is at the very core of all Western democracies (though less so in Switzerland).

The idea that it should be up to you and I to make a judgement on a complex international treaty is farcical. Are you versed on international law? I'm certainly not, and neither are the majority of Irish people. You wouldn't ask a school teacher to fly a jet airliner or perform brain surgery!

Representative democracy is how every EU country is run - why is that not decried from the roof-tops as undemocratic all the time? It's only undemocratic when it suits a particular agenda that happens to be in the minority among the democratically elected representatives!

Now - as for Ireland - I did say that there was legitimate opposition to the treaty as well - but the bulk of the opposition was pure scar tactics. I listened to the debates on the TV and the radio, and it was all about conscription, abortion, and losing our low corporate tax rate. A few lone voices of reason drew attention to the fact that the treaty is, at least to some extent, self-amending, and some objected on the basis that they were against the idea from the start, and they want to see it shut down not expanded. There was also a lot of objection based on nationalistic groud. The voices of reason on the NO side were drowned out by the more extreme fringes on that side. Had they not been, it would have been a much better debate.

Finally - I can't think of anything more democratic than responding to the concerns of the people. After the first referendum failed, the government immediately set out to find out why. What issues did the people have? They, like the exit polls, concluded that it was fears over neutrality, abortion, and tax, so they went to Europe to get agreement on a number of protocols which spelled out clearly that this treaty did not affect Ireland's Neutrality, did not remove Ireland's veto on fiscal matters, and did not nullify Ireland's abortion ban. Armed with this response to the concerns expressed - another vote was run, and this time MORE people voted, and the people accepted it. The vote was free and fair, and it was a resounding YES. How, exactly, is that undemocratic, or in any way illegitimate?

I've read many accounts from activists working on the NO campaign; they were not backed by a US conspiracy, but informed people going out and rejecting this deeply undemocratic, flawed doent. It is true there was a variety of reasons listed for voting NO, some coming from the political right on social issues or taxes, some from the left dealing with worker's rights (the working class soundly fell on the NO side regardless) and privatization; you might not agree with all of them, but a vote is still a vote, and since there was not fraud or irregularity involved, holding a second vote for the EU to get the result they wanted is completely illegitimate.

Those reasoned voices were over-powered by loonies unfortunately - and the second vote was not illegitimate at all - the Irish government secured the protocols needed to answer the concerns the majority of people had expressed in the first referendum, and given those legally binding assurances, the people were asked for their opinion again. To me that's democracy in action "we're not comfortable with X, Y and Z, deal with it - oh you did, great, now I'm happy".

Once a system is in place and running, it is extremely hard for people outside of the power circle to make fundamental changes to it (I should know, living in the U.S.) So many in the EU are screwed; because they are not the ones reaping the "benefits" accrued.

I think there are many less screwed people in the EU than in the US. I would like to see Europe shift even more towards the socialist end of the scale, and even further away from the capitalist end, but we are a heck of a lot further to the left than the US, and we look after our poor a heck of a lot better. We have less rich rich, and less poor poor. We have a much more sane balance between corporate rights and personal rights, and the EU have a lot to do with that. I use my democratic vote at local, national, and EU level to elect more liberal and more socialist candidates, and if all other voters did the same we'd have an Ireland and a Europe that reflected those values. The reality is that the majority of Irish and Europeans are centre-right in their views, so we have a centre-right Europe. The majority rules, even if you and I think they are wrong.

B.