About the EU - title edited 'cause it annoyed me

[The_Nice_Guy]

Now they want to canonise one of their key founders! The saint of the European Union!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ortal.html

I cannot fucking believe this. The US may have been religiously nutty, but this takes the cake.

[SirNitram]

Chirac. Not surprising. Not surprising at all.

[Oberleutnant]

Hey, let's bash the EU again!

Oh, so fucking great.

Nevermind the fact that the European Union has nothing to do with this.

[Colonel Olrik]

Now they want to canonise one of their key founders! The saint of the European Union!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ortal.html

I cannot fucking believe this. The US may have been religiously nutty, but this takes the cake.

They who?

The drive for his beatification and eventual canonisation was launched by a private group in Metz, the St Benoit Institute, but has acquired powerful backers, including President Jacques Chirac.

Until I know exactly how Chirac has been backing this, and who the other powerful supporters are this is nothing but a disgruntled christian group still pissed of with the secularism of the EU.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Glory be! For the Twelve Ham Sandwiches did command the lowly humans to create and expand the European Union, for their task was holy, or somesuch and so forth! Amen!

[Sarevok]

Does not a person need to be a holy man and perform miracles to become a saint ?

[Mange]

Ok, so what miracles has this person performed? Oh, yes, he was one of the founding fathers of what would become the most corrupt, bureaucratic, controlling and ineffective organization ever created. This is not his fault though of course, but sainthood?

[Prozac the Robert]

I'm not quite sure how an organisation is supposed to be both the most controlling and the most innefective thing ever. Also, I doubt it is anywhere near the all time number one for any of those things (with the slightly possible exception of beurocratic, but I doubt it).

Even if we ignore history and look at currently existing organisations, there are still loads of third world places which are a lot worse.

[Lord Pounder]

I'm not quite sure how an organisation is supposed to be both the most controlling and the most innefective thing ever.

By demanding stupid things like monetry union and regulated banana's while ignoring important things education, heathcare and immigration.

[TheDarkling]

By demanding stupid things like monetry union and regulated banana's while ignoring important things education, heathcare and immigration.

They don't have powers over those things and if they did people would start screaming about it being a federalist super state.

The only thing the bulk of the population (in the UK at least) knows about the EU is that they don't like it, they aren't really sure why or what the EU does but they do know they don't like it (the reason they don't like it is that Rupert Murdock has decreed it to be so).

I would also like to know why a currency union is a stupid thing.

[TheDarkling]

I'm not quite sure how an organisation is supposed to be both the most controlling and the most innefective thing ever. Also, I doubt it is anywhere near the all time number one for any of those things (with the slightly possible exception of beurocratic, but I doubt it).

The EU has a magical ability to be all things evil, talk to somebody on the far left and they will tell you the EU is in the pocket of big business and is designed to subjugate the working man to the interests of Corporations and to undermine the welfare state for an embracement of unbridled free market economics.

Talk to somebody on the right and they will tell you the EU is a method to spread extreme socialism far and wide whilst destroying economies under mountains of regulation and nationalisation.

Talk to somebody from a small country and they will tell you he EU is an attempt to suborn the little nations to the big nations so that they have extra power, yet when you speak to somebody from a big nation the EU itself is trying to rob them of their sovereignty much to their detriment.

A poor country believes the EU wants access to their cheap labour and market, bringing about economic turmoil in their nation whilst people in rich countries believe the EU is an attempt to rob from them and subsidise the poor nations.

I often wonder how the EU finds time to regulate the size of lollipops when they are out and about being a global conspiracy of evil bent on mutually contradictory aims, no wonder those Eurocrats get paid so much, it must be a very tough job to pull off.

[Oberleutnant]

Oh, yes, he was one of the founding fathers of what would become the most corrupt, bureaucratic, controlling and ineffective organization ever created.

That's an overblown statement if I ever saw one. What would you suggest as an alternative? One can certainly point out that EU has many faults, but it's barely out of its cradle - give it time to develop, reshape and grow. Instead of just criticizing and dismissing the whole thing, people need to understand that it's here to stay. Why not put all that energy into something more constructive, like fixing its problems?

EU has brought peace to Europe and improved our economies. These are not small achievements.

[Thinkmarble]

By demanding stupid things like monetry union and regulated banana's while ignoring important things education, heathcare and immigration.

*snorts*
Shows how much you now, ever heard the magical words Bologna process or ETCS ?
Or how about SCALE ? The european center for disease prevention and control or the european ban on advertisement for cigaretts ? How about the european health insurance card ? What about ARGO and INITI ?
Probably not, but it is so much easier to be an ignorant, arrogant ass then being an informed citizen who levels justified criticism.

[Mange]

Oh, yes, he was one of the founding fathers of what would become the most corrupt, bureaucratic, controlling and ineffective organization ever created.

That's an overblown statement if I ever saw one. What would you suggest as an alternative? One can certainly point out that EU has many faults, but it's barely out of its cradle - give it time to develop, reshape and grow. Instead of just criticizing and dismissing the whole thing, people need to understand that it's here to stay. Why not put all that energy into something more constructive, like fixing its problems?

EU has brought peace to Europe and improved our economies. These are not small achievements.

The EU brought peace to Europe? Wow, they certainly did a great job in trying to end the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia in the 90's! (well, perhaps not the best example). No, the foundation of peace in Europe is not based on the EU, but on NATO and the fact that Western Europe had a common enemy for fifty years. Improved our economies? Hmmm, what about Germany, France and Italy (and not to forget, Sweden)?
And, the EU is meddling with things that doesn't concern it.
For example, Sweden banned the highly toxic pesticide Parakvat (also spelled Paraquat) in 1983. Last year, the European Commission demanded that Sweden must lift its ban so that it again can be sold. Sweden has challenged the decision, by taking the commission to the European Court. There are a number of instances that is similar to this, and that is why I'm fed up with all the propaganda (from the Goverment and the EU I mean) about the dysfunctional and bureaucratic European Union which I don't think can be fixed.

[Colonel Olrik]

The EU brought peace to Europe? Wow, they certainly did a great job in trying to end the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia in the 90's! (well, perhaps not the best example).

It brought peace and prosperity within its members, it never had a mandate or the means to sort out the mess around it. You may notice that most of the countries involved in that war are now stable, democratic and prospering, and their desire to join and now being part of the EU has a lot to do with it.

Improved our economies? Hmmm, what about Germany, France and Italy (and not to forget, Sweden)?

What about it? They're passing through a rough period right now after decades of growing, it's not as if people live bad around here. What about Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece?

And, the EU is meddling with things that doesn't concern it.
For example, Sweden banned the highly toxic pesticide Parakvat (also spelled Paraquat) in 1983. Last year, the European Commission demanded that Sweden must lift its ban so that it again can be sold. Sweden has challenged the decision, by taking the commission to the European Court.

OMG the humanity! You're right, I'm now convinced the EU is hopeless because you presented a stupidly insignificant example being currently settled in court

There are a number of instances that is similar to this, and that is why I'm fed up with all the propaganda (from the Goverment and the EU I mean) about the dysfunctional and bureaucratic European Union which I don't think can be fixed.

You're not even trying. Like Pounder loves to do, you're just babbling about how evil the EU is.. because it is!

[Colonel Olrik]

By the way, flame bait thread title changed, just so that I don't feel so tempted to HOS the thread right now.

[Oberleutnant]

^
Olrik probably answered better than I could've - and faster.

Improved our economies? Hmmm, what about Germany, France and Italy (and not to forget, Sweden)?

What about it? They're passing through a rough period right now after decades of growing, it's not as if people live bad around here. What about Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece?

Let's add the new EU member states (whose economies will benefit tremendeously from joining the Union) and Finland to the list, too. We were going down the shitter in the early 1990s because of an economic recession during which the unemployment rate soared to 20%, but after we joined the EU in 1995, access to the EU internal market helped to save us. Foreign trade is extremely important for the economy of a small nation.

There are a number of instances that is similar to this, and that is why I'm fed up with all the propaganda (from the Goverment and the EU I mean) about the dysfunctional and bureaucratic European Union which I don't think can be fixed.

It seems to me that the Socialdemokraterna give a bad reputation to the EU in Sweden with their actions. Still, you didn't explain what your preferred alternative to the EU would be. Each European nation competing against one another - is that what wou want?

[Mange]

The EU brought peace to Europe? Wow, they certainly did a great job in trying to end the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia in the 90's! (well, perhaps not the best example).

It brought peace and prosperity within its members, it never had a mandate or the means to sort out the mess around it. You may notice that most of the countries involved in that war are now stable, democratic and prospering, and their desire to join and now being part of the EU has a lot to do with it.

Improved our economies? Hmmm, what about Germany, France and Italy (and not to forget, Sweden)?

What about it? They're passing through a rough period right now after decades of growing, it's not as if people live bad around here. What about Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece?

And, the EU is meddling with things that doesn't concern it.
For example, Sweden banned the highly toxic pesticide Parakvat (also spelled Paraquat) in 1983. Last year, the European Commission demanded that Sweden must lift its ban so that it again can be sold. Sweden has challenged the decision, by taking the commission to the European Court.

OMG the humanity! You're right, I'm now convinced the EU is hopeless because you presented a stupidly insignificant example being currently settled in court

There are a number of instances that is similar to this, and that is why I'm fed up with all the propaganda (from the Goverment and the EU I mean) about the dysfunctional and bureaucratic European Union which I don't think can be fixed.

You're not even trying. Like Pounder loves to do, you're just babbling about how evil the EU is.. because it is!

Look, I don't say that the EU is evil per se, but statements like "It [the EU]brought peace and prosperity within its members" I don't agree with. After the Second World War ended, and the countries in Western Europe all became democracies, the threat of war between any of these countries diminished. A truth in political science is that democratic countries never goes to war with each other.
I'm all for the free market, but I don't like the way the EU is being run. As I said, the EU should not be meddling with matters of internal politics, such as the perfectly valid example I mentioned.

I don't like the new draft constitution, I hope it won't pass. In many EU countries, people can have their saying about it, not here in Sweden though. It seems as if the Swedish government is too afraid to have a referendum because of the fact that the Swedish people voted against membership in the EMU. I don't want to align myself with the commies or the Greens (I'm a member of the conservative party which unfortunately strongly supports the EU btw), but I hope that the Swedish government is going to listen to the people who wants to have a referendum.

I don't like the EU, people can like it it's absolutely fine with me.

Sorry, perhaps I wrote too much about Swedish politics, but I must tell how it is from my perspective. I'm too tired to put forward more arguments right now, but I will tomorrow.

[TheDarkling]

Mange the Swede: What exactly in the Constitution do you dislike?

On the issue of that pesticide, it isn't an internal issue but trade issue, Sweden can't ban a product for no good reason (the EU obviously doesn't think it to dangerous to sell) just like the French couldn't decide to stop the sale of Volvos tomorrow or Britain prevent the sale of Greek cheese.

The lack of a proper legislative body to rule on these sorts f matters is exactly why the EFTA fell apart, the member countries would still use sly trade barriers and tariffs to try and gain an advantage.
Without an independent body empowered to make its own legally binding decisions free and fair trade is hard to actually achieve.

[Mange]

Each European nation competing against one another - is that what wou want?

I will tell you what I think would have been the best choice for the Nordic countries, my friend.

A Nordic union which would have the advantage of being closer to the citizens and with an organization that understands the needs of the Nordic countries (especially when it comes to agriculture, labor etc.).

[Mange]

Mange the Swede: What exactly in the Constitution do you dislike?

On the issue of that pesticide, it isn't an internal issue but trade issue, Sweden can't ban a product for no good reason (the EU obviously doesn't think it to dangerous to sell) just like the French couldn't decide to stop the sale of Volvos tomorrow or Britain prevent the sale of Greek cheese.

The lack of a proper legislative body to rule on these sorts f matters is exactly why the EFTA fell apart, the member countries would still use sly trade barriers and tariffs to try and gain an advantage.
Without an independent body empowered to make its own legally binding decisions free and fair trade is hard to actually achieve.

There are a number of things in the constitution that I dislike:
* if the constitution is passed in its current form, it would be difficult for Sweden (and other countries) to remain neutral during conflicts.

* the proposal of an European "foreign minister" means that the European foreign policy would be dictated by the EU.

* the new constitution is a step towards a federal European state.

But the constitution also has a good point:

* according to the proposal, the president of the European Commission is to be elected by the European Parliament, an extension of the people. Today, the president isn't elected in a way that could be called democratic.

About the pesticide, just because some nations sell it, it doesn't mean it's safe to use or not dangerous to the environment. Does anyone remember DDT? Parakvat was proven to be very dangerous and subsequently it was banned. An other example that is worth mentioning. A coloring matter used in candy, azo, was banned in Sweden because it could trigger severe allergic reactions. Again, the EU pointed its finger and said: no, no. So, Sweden again had to bow and allow potentially dangerous chemicals to be sold.

[TheDarkling]

There are a number of things in the constitution that I dislike:
* if the constitution is passed in its current form, it would be difficult for Sweden (and other countries) to remain neutral during conflicts.

Not really, they have to give aid in keeping with their own constitution.
Although in truth I have a rather low regard for neutral countries.

* the proposal of an European "foreign minister" means that the European foreign policy would be dictated by the EU.

EU members retain a veto over foreign policy so the EU can dictate nothing and the EU foreign minister will specifically deal with EU foreign policy (EU agreements with third nations).

* the new constitution is a step towards a federal European state.

Not really, for the first time a withdrawal procedure is put forth.
National parliaments for the first time have an ability to send back legislation to the EU parliament.
The commitment to an "ever closer union" has been dropped and the constitution confirms that power rests with the nation states which give that power to the EU.

But the constitution also has a good point:

* according to the proposal, the president of the European Commission is to be elected by the European Parliament, an extension of the people. Today, the president isn't elected in a way that could be called democratic.

I would have preferred a directly elected President but that is a step in the correct direction.

About the pesticide, just because some nations sell it, it doesn't mean it's safe to use or not dangerous to the environment. Does anyone remember DDT? Parakvat was proven to be very dangerous and subsequently it was banned. An other example that is worth mentioning. A coloring matter used in candy, azo, was banned in Sweden because it could trigger severe allergic reactions. Again, the EU pointed its finger and said: no, no. So, Sweden again had to bow and allow potentially dangerous chemicals to be sold.

If they are that dangerous it should be easy for Sweden to prove its case, if they cannot prove that case then I would say they have failed in a fair arbitration.

[Oberleutnant]

Not really, they have to give aid in keeping with their own constitution.

Yes, because the Finnish foreign minister immediately rejected Italy's original proposal, which included automatic security guarantees for all EU members. He saw it as a threat to militarily non-aligned EU countries. Could someone tell me what would be so bad about it if EU members were obliged to help each other if they came under attack by a foreign power or terrorists?

"Finland called for a different wording, according to which a member state "may ask" other member states for help, which can take the form of military measures or other means." Helsingin Sanomat


At least we got this. It's definitely better than nothing.

Although in truth I have a rather low regard for neutral countries.

You're not the only one...

I will tell you what I think would have been the best choice for the Nordic countries, my friend.

A Nordic union which would have the advantage of being closer to the citizens and with an organization that understands the needs of the Nordic countries (especially when it comes to agriculture, labor etc.).

I myself would rather see the Nordic EU countries strengthen their cooperation within the EU. One strong opinion weighs more than three tiny ones.

Alas, it's not happening.

[Mange]

Not really, they have to give aid in keeping with their own constitution.

Yes, because the Finnish foreign minister immediately rejected Italy's original proposal, which included automatic security guarantees for all EU members. He saw it as a threat to militarily non-aligned EU countries. Could someone tell me what would be so bad about it if EU members were obliged to help each other if they came under attack by a foreign power or terrorists?

"Finland called for a different wording, according to which a member state "may ask" other member states for help, which can take the form of military measures or other means." Helsingin Sanomat


At least we got this. It's definitely better than nothing.

Although in truth I have a rather low regard for neutral countries.

You're not the only one...

I will tell you what I think would have been the best choice for the Nordic countries, my friend.

A Nordic union which would have the advantage of being closer to the citizens and with an organization that understands the needs of the Nordic countries (especially when it comes to agriculture, labor etc.).

I myself would rather see the Nordic EU countries strengthen their cooperation within the EU. One strong opinion weighs more than three tiny ones.

Alas, it's not happening.

Well, I made a poor choice of words yesterday. I'm not meaning neutral in the sense of being neutral in conflicts. With neutral I mean to stay out of military alliances. While I personally favor NATO and thinks that Sweden should be more involved in it, I don't like the idea of an European defense alliance. Sure, I think that we should help each other in the advent of a terrorist attack and assist if neighboring countries is attacked. I've always been of the opinion that Sweden did far too little to assist our neighbors when they were attacked and occupied during the Second World War. Of course, I didn't experience those times personally, but sitting idly by and watching isn't something I would like the Swedish government to do ever again. My point is that we don't need the EU for this.
In my next post, I will expand on my criticism against the European Union.

[Thinkmarble]

Well, I made a poor choice of words yesterday. I'm not meaning neutral in the sense of being neutral in conflicts. With neutral I mean to stay out of military alliances. While I personally favor NATO and thinks that Sweden should be more involved in it, I don't like the idea of an European defense alliance. Sure, I think that we should help each other in the advent of a terrorist attack and assist if neighboring countries is attacked. I've always been of the opinion that Sweden did far too little to assist our neighbors when they were attacked and occupied during the Second World War. Of course, I didn't experience those times personally, but sitting idly by and watching isn't something I would like the Swedish government to do ever again. My point is that we don't need the EU for this.
In my next post, I will expand on my criticism against the European Union.

You mean something like the Western european union ?