Will Straw on the relation of EU and Britain

[Simon_Jester]

Which is why nobody talks about a European superstate (yet). The most optimistic situation calls for the nations to get along with each other for a hundred years or so before a superstate can be formed.

So, how does this dovetail with Shadow's observation that at least some of the EU periphery countries feel that this "we're going to try to become a superstate maybe we hope!" attitude isn't the EU they originally wanted to join, which was a simple economic union?

[LaCroix]

Well, they don't have to - there's a lot of things you don't have to do while still being in the EU - Schengen treaty, Euro as currency... If the EU moves towards unification, it would do this with additional treaties, and it would be opt-in (and need approval of the already-ins, just like Membership today, or Euro adoption). How doesn't want to be "true EU" can simply remain a member of the economic union

And if the situation truly becomes unbearable for a state, they could simply leave the union - it's not as we would declare war on secessionists.

[Thanas]

So, how does this dovetail with Shadow's observation that at least some of the EU periphery countries feel that this "we're going to try to become a superstate maybe we hope!" attitude isn't the EU they originally wanted to join, which was a simple economic union?

Then they were seriously mistaken and failed to read the relevant preambles and statements. Ever since Maastricht the EU has been quite open about wanting to become eventually a European state. This is the tradeoff for reaping economic benefits. If people do not like it they are free to leave and make seperate agreements with the EU.

But one cannot demand to reap benefits without contributing politically.

[His Divine Shadow]

Sounds like we better shitcan the whole thing yeah.

[Darth Tanner]

Well, they don't have to - there's a lot of things you don't have to do while still being in the EU - Schengen treaty, Euro as currency

Actually you do, being a member of the EU means you leally have to have the euro as your currency once you have met the euro convergence criteria. The UK and Denmark had to fight to get out of that requirement. Same with the Schengen area, EU members are legally required to join unless they can negotiate an opt out - only the UK and Ireland have an opt out - the UK for obvious immigration reasons and Ireland because they would rather have free movement into the UK than Europe, if either country were joining today they likely wouldn't receive an opt out... as all recent EU members have failed to achieve one.

Although I take your point there are opt outs for pretty much all EU institutions these are usually one offs from the UK or other countries playing up, not an automatic right to opt out.

there are strong regional divides in the US, and we only went to war with those assholes down South once.

For all the internet tough talk of new civil wars we get on this board sorting out those troublesome southerners is there actually any real political movement for secession? An actual political party?

Then they were seriously mistaken and failed to read the relevant preambles and statements. Ever since Maastricht the EU has been quite open about wanting to become eventually a European state. This is the tradeoff for reaping economic benefits. If people do not like it they are free to leave and make seperate agreements with the EU.

I think that’s a major point of digression right there… it’s difficult to argue the EU simply must march on towards super state status regardless because of what your stated aims are. It’s up to what the member states choose to give it in terms of political power here and now which is not determined by what occurred in the Maastricht negotiations 12 years ago with a completely different set of EU members.

[Thanas]

Sounds like we better shitcan the whole thing yeah.

Well if you want to leave, nobody is stopping you. But since those nationalists in your country did not even manage to get a quarter of the votes I think we know where the majority of Finns stand, so it sounds like you get to enjoy the benefits of the EU and closer integration for a while longer.

Actually you do, being a member of the EU means you leally have to have the euro as your currency once you have met the euro convergence criteria. The UK and Denmark had to fight to get out of that requirement. Same with the Schengen area, EU members are legally required to join unless they can negotiate an opt out - only the UK and Ireland have an opt out - the UK for obvious immigration reasons and Ireland because they would rather have free movement into the UK than Europe, if either country were joining today they likely wouldn't receive an opt out... as all recent EU members have failed to achieve one.

Although I take your point there are opt outs for pretty much all EU institutions these are usually one offs from the UK or other countries playing up, not an automatic right to opt out.

And that is a good thing. The EU is not supposed to be a pick and choose, it is supposed to be a compromise. One cannot pick only benefits without surrendering anything. If that were the case the EU would not work at all. Nor would any international body.

I think that’s a major point of digression right there… it’s difficult to argue the EU simply must march on towards super state status regardless because of what your stated aims are. It’s up to what the member states choose to give it in terms of political power here and now which is not determined by what occurred in the Maastricht negotiations 12 years ago with a completely different set of EU members.

And yet these principles were reaffirmed with the new EU "constitution".

[Darth Tanner]

Sounds like we better shitcan the whole thing yeah.

That would be a bit of an extreme reaction to something that most people seem to still want. At least to some extent. I doubt anyone wants a EU super state as badly as the Germans.

Well if you want to leave, nobody is stopping you.

I think its refreshingly honest that the Lisbon treaty openly included the right of withdrawl for EU members... and telling that to this day that only Greenland has exercised that right whislt remaining bound under treaty.

And that is a good thing. The EU is not supposed to be a pick and choose, it is supposed to be a compromise. One cannot pick only benefits without surrendering anything. If that were the case the EU would not work at all. Nor would any international body.

I'd argue the fact that there are so many opt outs has kept the EU together in the short term... for the UK/Denmark/Sweden at least.

And yet these principles were reaffirmed with the new EU "constitution".

Hardly a rigning endorsement though. Both Maastricht and the EU constition/Lisbon faced massive opposition in being passed from the actual people... the EU has always been more popular with politicians than the public. Obviously thats a problem with the rag press here in the UK but its a large problem EU wide.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well if you want to leave, nobody is stopping you. But since those nationalists in your country did not even manage to get a quarter of the votes I think we know where the majority of Finns stand, so it sounds like you get to enjoy the benefits of the EU and closer integration for a while longer.

I realize we're not leaving anytime soon, but one has to have hope if nothing else.

[Thanas]

Well if you want to leave, nobody is stopping you. But since those nationalists in your country did not even manage to get a quarter of the votes I think we know where the majority of Finns stand, so it sounds like you get to enjoy the benefits of the EU and closer integration for a while longer.

I realize we're not leaving anytime soon, but one has to have hope if nothing else.

Well, I hope you live long enough for the European Union to evolve into a permanent Federal Union.

That would be a bit of an extreme reaction to something that most people seem to still want. At least to some extent. I doubt anyone wants a EU super state as badly as the Germans.

Depends on who you ask. There are a lot of legal problems with the EU which need to be ironed out.

[His Divine Shadow]

Jawohl, all of europe will bend it's knee eventually.

[Zaune]

Jawohl, all of europe will bend it's knee eventually.

That isn't very funny when it's Thanas doing it, from a non-German it's tasteless as well.

[His Divine Shadow]

The meaning was to give offense.

[Tribble]

There's plenty good reasons to be critical of the EU but 'the Commissioners are unelected' is not one of them. British cabinet ministers aren't directly elected either, is that also a terrible failure of democracy? Because the Commissioners are the EU equivalent, right down to their accountability to the (elected) European Parliament.

... and wherein by 'aren't directly elected' I mean 'the voter doesn't get to decide who gets to be Secretary for Education or Chancellor of the Exchequer'. I am aware that British cabinet ministers are themselves MPs. It probably also bears pointing out that particular model is by no means a European standard either.

Well you just hit the nail on the head. Perhaps it's because I'm from a Commonwealth country, but the idea that you can have an entire group of politicians wielding that kind of power without any representation by voters sounds pretty awful to me. It's the equivalent of having our Prime Minister and his cabinet being appointed by the House of Commons, with none of them having to be elected first. Sure, you could argue that it might be a more "efficient" way of doing things, but if anyone actually suggested such a move there would be instant riots on the streets. "Taxation without representation" and all that.

And we've been dancing around this for some time, so I might as well ask: how much power and influence does Germany have within in the EU as opposed to other countries? Because from an outsider's perspective it looks like Germany is essentially the EU - the other continental countries, with the possible exception of France, don't appear to really count for much. And don't take that as a knock against the Germans - the fact that they've managed to remain the economic powerhouse of Europe despite all that's happened of the past hundred years is admirable. And I don't believe that it's a big conspiracy by Germany to take over the continent- Germany is going out of it's way to try to prove that's not the case. But whether the Germans like it or not, they are the economic powerhouse of Europe, and Merkel appears to be by far the most influential person within the EU.

I think that when one country outweighs all the others, there are bound to be issues and resistance to further integration. The smaller countries' citizens worry (perhaps rightly) that by integrating further they'll lose whatever influence they currently have. That's certainly the case in North America. It makes total sense for Canada (and perhaps Mexico) to form a single political union with the USA. The potential benefits are huge. But Canadian support for amalgamation with the USA is usually around the single digits. Why? We like to claim that the reason is because of cultural differences, and it's true that Canada and the USA are more different than they appear at first glance. But the real reason is that we fear our influence within the US would be minimal- at best, we may have the influential power of one state. We do not have to population and economic power of California let alone the rest of the US. We feel that there is no possible way such a union would be remotely equal, and we'll be treated as the "other" Alaska (no offence to those living there). By remaining separate, we feel we have more influence within the US than if we joined. I think you can make the argument that UK citizens (rightly or wrongly) feel that way as well.

[Tribble]

EDIT: The last sentence was supposed to be "countries such as Greece" instead of "UK citizens". My mind wanders a lot

[Siege]

Well you just hit the nail on the head. Perhaps it's because I'm from a Commonwealth country, but the idea that you can have an entire group of politicians wielding that kind of power without any representation by voters sounds pretty awful to me.

And interestingly enough, the idea that the legislative and executive branches of government aren't properly separated does not appeal to me. In The Netherlands the cabinet is isolated from the parliament: ministers get to propose laws, but they do not get to vote on them. My point is: this to me is a matter of political-administrative preferences and degrees. Neither model represents an egregious miscarriage of democracy, it's just two slightly different ways to get results. It to me appears unhelpful to get hung up on relatively minor matters like whether commissioners should be chosen from the European Parliament (the Parliament can veto them anyway) when there's also a very real discussion about the desirable extent of the transfer of sovereignty to be had.

And we've been dancing around this for some time, so I might as well ask: how much power and influence does Germany have within in the EU as opposed to other countries?

That's an impossible question to answer with any degree of precision, or at least not without making an in-depth case study of it. "The EU" comprises a multitude of institutions: the Commission, the Council of Ministers, the Central Bank, the European Council that is the assembled heads of state, the European Parliament and so forth. If you were to examine these I think you'll find none suffer from an overriding German presence, although having the largest population Germans are generally well-represented (they elect, for example, the largest number of MEPs). But Germany still gets only one Commissioner; the Present of the Central Bank is an Italian; and generally the EU takes great pains to at least give the impression that everyone is equally represented.

Of course having a whopping economy and deep coffers probably means that when the European Council meets Angela Merkel's opinion carries more weight than that of, say, the Estonian PM. But then she represents 81 million Germans who pay Brussels €22 billion each year and there's only 1.3 million Estonians who contribute just over €100 million , so isn't that, you know, kind of fair?

So my broad answer would be: yes, Germany has a lot of influence, as befits the biggest nation that contributes the most money. The picture painted by some media however that Germany somehow has full control over what goes on in Brussels is, in my opinion, simply absurd.

[Thanas]

Jawohl, all of europe will bend it's knee eventually.

I am glad that you recognize your future purpose in live. Now where did I put my whip....

Or maybe you can get back to earth? It is not an evil Empire out to get people. It is the best peace-preserving instrument we have. It prevents conflicts. It helps with wealth and closer understanding of each other. These are all good things.

So my broad answer would be: yes, Germany has a lot of influence, as befits the biggest nation that contributes the most money. The picture painted by some media however that Germany somehow has full control over what goes on in Brussels is, in my opinion, simply absurd.

One can see that in the Greece crisis as well, considering Draghi was not doing what Schäuble wanted. Also, the EU institutions are set up so that no single country can gain control.

I think that when one country outweighs all the others, there are bound to be issues and resistance to further integration. The smaller countries' citizens worry (perhaps rightly) that by integrating further they'll lose whatever influence they currently have. That's certainly the case in North America. It makes total sense for Canada (and perhaps Mexico) to form a single political union with the USA. The potential benefits are huge. But Canadian support for amalgamation with the USA is usually around the single digits. Why? We like to claim that the reason is because of cultural differences, and it's true that Canada and the USA are more different than they appear at first glance. But the real reason is that we fear our influence within the US would be minimal- at best, we may have the influential power of one state. We do not have to population and economic power of California let alone the rest of the US. We feel that there is no possible way such a union would be remotely equal, and we'll be treated as the "other" Alaska (no offence to those living there). By remaining separate, we feel we have more influence within the US than if we joined. I think you can make the argument that UK citizens (rightly or wrongly) feel that way as well.

But the solution to that is not taking your hat and leaving, as that leaves only smaller countries with Germany dominating everything. With Britain, France can be a counterweight. Without it, who is there? Maybe Poland in a decade or two, but they are far away from being it right now. The EU needs Britain simply to provide a different point of view on issues. Leaving the EU would achieve exactly the opposite - a continent dominated by Germany. Not because they want to, but because there simply is not anyone else there who is providing a different message. France is becoming more and more like Germany in social and economic policies, Poland is not there yet, Spain and Italy are crippled by their own problems. With Britain in the EU it also helps the smaller countries like the Benelux who can play mediator. (Note that I am not talking about dominance like Merkel flips a switch and the EU follows - the EU structure prevents any such kind of dominance - but more like whose vision gets enacted, whose economic model gets exported, whose laws and ideologies get represented).

So leaving would IMO just do the exact opposite of what Britain want.

[Irbis]

So, how does this dovetail with Shadow's observation that at least some of the EU periphery countries feel that this "we're going to try to become a superstate maybe we hope!" attitude isn't the EU they originally wanted to join, which was a simple economic union?

What he missed is that another half of the periphery tries to rush said superstate as fait accompli, joining everything they can. It's mostly the nationalists/populists/diehard conservatives that are opposed to it no matter what.

Actually you do, being a member of the EU means you leally have to have the euro as your currency once you have met the euro convergence criteria.

Except, no one forces you to meet these? Poland was ready to join in 2007, but one eurosceptic party forced not meeting these for 2 years and once they were out of power crisis kicked in, giving another convenient excuse. And our ministers weren't even trying that hard to dodge it, on the contrary.

[Darth Nostril]

Which is why nobody talks about a European superstate (yet). The most optimistic situation calls for the nations to get along with each other for a hundred years or so before a superstate can be formed.

But the solution to that is not taking your hat and leaving, as that leaves only smaller countries with Germany dominating everything. With Britain, France can be a counterweight. Without it, who is there? Maybe Poland in a decade or two, but they are far away from being it right now. The EU needs Britain simply to provide a different point of view on issues. Leaving the EU would achieve exactly the opposite - a continent dominated by Germany. Not because they want to, but because there simply is not anyone else there who is providing a different message. France is becoming more and more like Germany in social and economic policies, Poland is not there yet, Spain and Italy are crippled by their own problems. With Britain in the EU it also helps the smaller countries like the Benelux who can play mediator. (Note that I am not talking about dominance like Merkel flips a switch and the EU follows - the EU structure prevents any such kind of dominance - but more like whose vision gets enacted, whose economic model gets exported, whose laws and ideologies get represented).

So leaving would IMO just do the exact opposite of what Britain want.

I really wish I could make all the morons who read the Daily Mail (instead of wiping their arses with it, which is all it's good for) read what you have written in this thread.

[mr friendly guy]

Just to broaden my own knowledge about something I don't know a lot about... but how strong are eurosceptic factions? Obviously strength varies between countries, and it might be possible that eurosceptic factions in the UK might be strong enough to make the UK leave the EU. But what about other EU members?

[Tribble]

But the solution to that is not taking your hat and leaving, as that leaves only smaller countries with Germany dominating everything. With Britain, France can be a counterweight. Without it, who is there? Maybe Poland in a decade or two, but they are far away from being it right now. The EU needs Britain simply to provide a different point of view on issues. Leaving the EU would achieve exactly the opposite - a continent dominated by Germany. Not because they want to, but because there simply is not anyone else there who is providing a different message. France is becoming more and more like Germany in social and economic policies, Poland is not there yet, Spain and Italy are crippled by their own problems. With Britain in the EU it also helps the smaller countries like the Benelux who can play mediator. (Note that I am not talking about dominance like Merkel flips a switch and the EU follows - the EU structure prevents any such kind of dominance - but more like whose vision gets enacted, whose economic model gets exported, whose laws and ideologies get represented).

So leaving would IMO just do the exact opposite of what Britain want.

I agree, but I can understand the viewpoint. And again, I'm just being realistic here - at this point, I think it's more likely that the UK will leave rather than stay. So what's the point in trying to force the issue? Best case scenario is that the status quo is maintained. The chances of the UK joining the Euro is practically zero... hey that rhymes

[TithonusSyndrome]

With Britain, France can be a counterweight. Without it, who is there? Maybe Poland in a decade or two, but they are far away from being it right now.

Surely Italy cannot be such a basket case as to be less-suited to providing a unified counterweight against Germany than a hypothetical Poland a decade or two hence?

[Thanas]

With Britain, France can be a counterweight. Without it, who is there? Maybe Poland in a decade or two, but they are far away from being it right now.

Surely Italy cannot be such a basket case as to be less-suited to providing a unified counterweight against Germany than a hypothetical Poland a decade or two hence?

Italy is a complete basket case. They change heads of Government as others change their underwear, their previous head of state waged a decade long war against the rule of law and changed laws for his benefit (and still has only been convicted in one case), the North hates the South, the minorities in the former Austrian territories hate the whole lot of them, the south fights corruption on a scale comparable or even worse than the third world and their finances are in a lot of danger. Heck, they cannot even safely stabilize their most important treasures without messing it up (see Pompeii).

They got a lot of work to do and will be occupied with their own problems.

[His Divine Shadow]

I am glad that you recognize your future purpose in live. Now where did I put my whip....

Or maybe you can get back to earth? It is not an evil Empire out to get people. It is the best peace-preserving instrument we have. It prevents conflicts. It helps with wealth and closer understanding of each other. These are all good things.

What's peace preserving about it is the economic integration aspect. Same reason China and the US aren't going to war. Money talks, bullshit walks in other words. We can have that as a loose confederation of economic interests and ensure peace, trade and understanding. There's no need to give a bunch of people in Europe sway in our internal matters and law making abilities. I've been overly bombastic because frankly the EU is trying to fuck me and my interests over in a most personal way and it makes me wanna go punch stuff at the sheer frustration of it.

And it doesn't benefit economic integration at all, it's just pure power centralization for it's own sake, the EU is just increasing the sphere over which it wants a say in. Which is what is going to cause more and more strain in the future, I won't be surprised if the whole thing in the future breaks over this, if things keep on going the same way. It isn't as solid as it looks, nothing is. Political surprises that nobody can predict can come as easily in the 2000s as they did in the early 1900s. Frankly it prevents closer understanding due to it's attempt to homogenize Europe, it creates festering resentment and disharmony.

And unlike the characterization in this thread a lot of the EU opposition comes from the die hard left here, the right wing is more EU positive in general in both Sweden (moderate party) and Finland (Kokoomus).

[Thanas]

What's peace preserving about it is the economic integration aspect. Same reason China and the US aren't going to war. Money talks, bullshit walks in other words. We can have that as a loose confederation of economic interests and ensure peace, trade and understanding. There's no need to give a bunch of people in Europe sway in our internal matters and law making abilities. I've been overly bombastic because frankly the EU is trying to fuck me and my interests over in a most personal way and it makes me wanna go punch stuff at the sheer frustration of it.

Almost every law the EU makes is based on the common market principle. Almost everything, including closer political integration, derives from that. Because there are a ton of things that affect the economy. The whole discrimination legislation? Economy. Freedom of Movement? Competition, economy. Regulatory power over what constitutes a banana and what not? Economy. Fighting corruption? Economy.

Now, what internal law is the EU really making? Does it handle criminal law? No. Does it handle constitutional freedoms? No, except for a few nebulous and vague principles which are covered by any national law anyway. The only internal law the EU is handling is where the member states have agreed to delegate power. Freely, I might add.

Is the EU the best thing ever? No. It is a compromise. And we could do a lot worse.

And it doesn't benefit economic integration at all, it's just pure power centralization for it's own sake, the EU is just increasing the sphere over which it wants a say in.

To what end? So that a 21st century Richelieu can lord over it all? No. The EU is trying to integrate more closely. It wants to handle things more efficiently (and if you claim the EU is inefficient you need to check your numbers with regards to the money and bureucrats they actually use. Heck, some German Goverment agencies each employ more people than the whole of the EU.)

Which is what is going to cause more and more strain in the future, I won't be surprised if the whole thing in the future breaks over this, if things keep on going the same way. It isn't as solid as it looks, nothing is. Political surprises that nobody can predict can come as easily in the 2000s as they did in the early 1900s. Frankly it prevents closer understanding due to it's attempt to homogenize Europe, it creates festering resentment and disharmony.

How? Can you actually point to cases where political rapproachment has gotten more difficult because of the EU? Because there are a lot of positive examples, not the least being the end of German-French enmity, which probably means the most destructive force of the whole continent since the 9th century is gone. Do you realize what a massive achievement that is in itself?

And unlike the characterization in this thread a lot of the EU opposition comes from the die hard left here, the right wing is more EU positive in general in both Sweden (moderate party) and Finland (Kokoomus).

In what way can the True Finns be characterized as a leftist party?

[His Divine Shadow]

Well the EU has banned Snus in Finland for example, only Sweden got an exception. This kind of thing should not be up to you to regulated. Gun laws are another area they have already had their hands in which limits how we can form our own licensing schemes and just recently we saw evidence of another push in this area to add more useless regulations (yeah sure you might disagree on this, but I would rather finland got to decided these things on our own) and this is an area that anti-gun nations like the UK can hold sway over our internal matters too, which is quite scary.

You may think these are dumb reasons, I don't however and to me that's all I care about. Well the tobacco one not so much though itäs a popular issue round here and i agree with the general ideology of it and the fact that they banned a less harmful alternative to cigarettes, but whatever. The gun one OTOH, well it's practically the whole reason I am now EU critical, if it was the other way around, the EU was a liberalizing force, then I'd say we should just shut down the finnish government and just become one big european country right this second.

As for the true finns, economically I don't see anything that makes them anything but left, just socially conservative/nationalist leftists. Don't blame me for TF though, I vote RKP, for a local guy from my gun club.