About the EU - title edited 'cause it annoyed me

[Mange]

As promised, I will expand on my criticism against the European Union. I'm sorry, but much of this is based on Sweden.

* The membership fee. Sweden is paying 25 billion Swedish kronor ($3.3 billion dollars) in membership fee to the European Union, that's 68,5 million kronor ($9,1 million) per day! That money could be better spent on health care and education here in Sweden. The size of the membership fee is based on foreign trade and the estimated reflux of funds to the agricultural sector. An other fact is that Sweden negotiated badly, which further increased the membership fee. In fact, the Swedish fee is one of the highest calculated on the number of citizens in the country.
Almost half of the 25 billion kronor Sweden pays to the European Union goes to the agricultural sector, which a.o. is aiding tobacco farmers in the southern European countries.

* The new constitution makes the EU a legal entity, with the right of entering agreements without the consent of the membership states.

* The European Court is more and more becoming a European Supreme Court which decisions must be abided by the membership states. In extension, it could work against the membership states constitutions.

* The bigger countries, such as Germany, France and the UK has too much power in the parliament. The smaller countries such as Sweden and Finland has a very weak voice.

* The EU is a very, very inefficent organization. Nothing better illustrates this than a question that I think shows the difference between various European countries, the conditions that live animals are transported under. Don't get me wrong, I'm no vegetarian or animal rights activist, but I think that meat should be produced close to where it is consumed. Sweden has been a vocal supporter of better conditions for the animals while other countries such as Ireland, has proposed worse conditions. According to the current rules, animals (such as cows and pigs etc.) can be transported 14 hours after which a pause for one hour is required before the transport can be resumed for an other 14 hours. A transport that exceeds 28 hours also requires a days rest outside of the vehicle.
According to a new proposal, the 14 hours is to be replaced with 18 hours after which a pause lasting 12 hours is required. No limit is placed on the length of the transport.
One thing that is connected to this is that some European countries are stupid enough and allows that antibiotics is injected in healthy animals to enhance their growth. Well, that doesn't bother me really as I always buy meat that is produced in Sweden, in part to support Swedish farmers, but also that I know that the animals haven't been transported across Europe before being slaughtered.

* The European Union is an artificial entity. Of course, the sense of fellowship is socially constructed, but we have not much in common, we have no common history, no natural common langauge, and we haven't developed together. We have a lot to learn from each other, I'm not a xenophobic but customs are also separating us.

There are pros and cons when it comes to the EU as it is with all things, but the cons far outweigh the pros.

[Mange]

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 ?

Well, perhaps. I don't like the idea of sending troops to other parts of Europe if there are countries in the area that is able to assist if a country is attacked.

[GySgt. Hartman]

[...]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. [...]

Somehow that doesn't make sense - supporting one milti-national organization but not another with the same goals? Even the US has traditionally called for closer cooperation in these matters (Bush has reversed this policy for his irrational fear of creating a threat to absolute US superiority), because it would be a great aid in international missions. The EU would be a major player in the world league and could help take some pressure off the far-stretched US forces.
Most missions are simply too large for a single nation, and coordinating multi-national missions has always been a hassle because you have to consider who gives what amount of support and give out commands accordingly; a united European force (which doesn't need to consist of all of Europe's armies) would be easier to manage. Things like needing spare parts for only one European assault rifle instead of ten national ones make supporting the troops easier. Having a unified European command structure instead of one that changes from mission to mission makes planning and training easier. There are many good reasons for unifying military structures and equipment in Europe, and they have been recognized years ago.

[Mange]

Perhaps I should clarify what I mean with the different customs issue. As I tried to illustrate with the animal transport example, the different ways of seeing things can be a real obstacle when it has to do with cultural traits and customs that different nations feel strongly about. This has a real effect on the decision making process.

Cooperation is essential for Europe. With that I mean cooperation between sovereign countries. All the various EU nations are
liberal democracies where the people have elected the governments. We don't need a European parliament, European court or a European commission for cooperation, free trade or free movement of people. All that is needed is that every country should speak with one voice through their respective, elected governments. We don't need thousands and thousands of bureaucrats to for cooperation. We don't need the corruption that runs rampant in the halls of the different EU institutions. We don't need institutions that aren't even elected to tell the different countries what to allow or not to allow (such as the examples I mentioned yesterday with the pesticide Paraquat and candy coloring matter Azo that Sweden must allow).
We don't need a common foreign minister. We don't need all this redicoulos talk of competing with the US or Japan. Face it, EU will NEVER be able to do so.
Outsourcing is a real threat to the workers and the European economies, but this isn't the topic of this thread, sorry.

The EU is a sinking ship, and I hope to stay clear of it when it finally sinks.

Gunnery sgt. Hartman, not being neutral doesn't necessarily mean military involvement, it could be as simple as speaking your mind. During the Second World War, Swedish writers and journalists that were against Nazi-Germany was suppressed in order not to infuriate Germany. Sweden also played appeasement politics towards both towards Germany and later the Allies. Some people would say that isn't being neutral, that is just plain cowardice. Sweden today can't be said to be neutral as the
Swedish government was against the war in Iraq. I don't agree with that position, but this is hypocracy. IMO you can't claim neutrality while at the same time making a statement of your position.

[TheDarkling]

As promised, I will expand on my criticism against the European Union. I'm sorry, but much of this is based on Sweden.

That is only natural, I am largely in favour of the EU because (in my view at least) it brings advantages to the UK.

* The membership fee. Sweden is paying 25 billion Swedish kronor ($3.3 billion dollars) in membership fee to the European Union, that's 68,5 million kronor ($9,1 million) per day! That money could be better spent on health care and education here in Sweden. The size of the membership fee is based on foreign trade and the estimated reflux of funds to the agricultural sector. An other fact is that Sweden negotiated badly, which further increased the membership fee. In fact, the Swedish fee is one of the highest calculated on the number of citizens in the country.
Almost half of the 25 billion kronor Sweden pays to the European Union goes to the agricultural sector, which a.o. is aiding tobacco farmers in the southern European countries.

Sweden pays the third most (net) per person after Netherlands and Luxembourg according to my figures.
Wit that said the benefits of larger single market are also better for Sweden than the bigger countries, the UK increases its internal market 7.5 xs by being in the EU whereas Sweden increases its potential customers by 50x.

The increase in the "internal" customer base is far more dramatic for smaller nations so they benefit more (comparatively) than the larger nations (all things being equal).

* The new constitution makes the EU a legal entity, with the right of entering agreements without the consent of the membership states.

On economic matters which the EU already has the power to do only now we save cash by not having to send 25 individual delegations off to trade meetings, we can just send one.

* The European Court is more and more becoming a European Supreme Court which decisions must be abided by the membership states. In extension, it could work against the membership states constitutions.

The European Court can only rule in keeping with the laws already agreed to, if those laws breech somebody’s constitution then they should never have been allowed to sign that law in the first place.

* The bigger countries, such as Germany, France and the UK has too much power in the parliament. The smaller countries such as Sweden and Finland has a very weak voice.

That is called democracy and to be a really pressing issue we would need to see country designated block voting which doesn't occur ( the parties are aligned along ideological preference).

* The EU is a very, very inefficent organization.

True, however when legislation which will improve the situation (such as the constitution) is proposed people object (including yourself).

One thing that is connected to this is that some European countries are stupid enough and allows that antibiotics is injected in healthy animals to enhance their growth. Well, that doesn't bother me really as I always buy meat that is produced in Sweden, in part to support Swedish farmers, but also that I know that the animals haven't been transported across Europe before being slaughtered.

And if the rest of Sweden (of France/ Belgium / Finland etc) felt the same they would also not by transported meat, since they don't seem to feel that way I would also say that the issue obviously isn't at the forefront of peoples minds.

As an example of consumers influencing production, battery Farm eggs (where the hens are kept in small cages) got a very bad pressing Britain and son free range eggs appeared, people switched and battery farms were forced to reform to win back business.

* The European Union is an artificial entity. Of course, the sense of fellowship is socially constructed, but we have not much in common, we have no common history, no natural common langauge, and we haven't developed together. We have a lot to learn from each other, I'm not a xenophobic but customs are also separating us.

I live in an artificial union between three (or more depending upon how far you go back) nations and we did fairly well for ourselves.

Europeans have as much common history and shared culture as India which is a unified country even given the handicaps it suffered coming into being so it is certainly possible for people who don't have complete cultural similarity to work together.

There are pros and cons when it comes to the EU as it is with all things, but the cons far outweigh the pros.

Not from my position and many of the cons can be erased with a little work.

[Mange]

Well, Darkling, the UK managed to negotiate a pretty good deal on its membership fee, unfortunately the UK said last month it will block a proposal from the EU budgetary commissioner that would lower membership fees for certain EU members (among those Sweden) because it would mean the UK would lose its membership fee discount (I'm sorry, I don't know if discount is the right word).

As for it being democracy that the larger countries have a bigger influence, of course, but it's highly unproportional. The recent reduction of seats in the European Parliament have further weakened the smaller countries. I don't think the Parliament is needed at all in the first place.

[TheDarkling]

Well, Darkling, the UK managed to negotiate a pretty good deal on its membership fee, unfortunately the UK said last month it will block a proposal from the EU budgetary commissioner that would lower membership fees for certain EU members (among those Sweden) because it would mean the UK would lose its membership fee discount (I'm sorry, I don't know if discount is the right word).

Rebate is the correct word but discount is ok.

The reason Britain has that rebate is because at the time of our joining the EU (or EEC as it was then) we were a large country which was poor (by western standards) and had little agriculture.
Without the rebate we would have been paying (net) a huge amount (more than the richer and more populous Germany) so Thatcher demanded "I want my money back".

I think now that the UK has recovered from being the poor man of Europe we should drop the rebate (although not now because that would certainly kill the constitution) in exchange for the destruction of the CAP.
I don’t mind the EU paying for roads and hospitals in Poland (although a trip into space would be nice as a prestige thing) but I am against us paying for French farmers to whine about not getting paid enough to do sod all.

For the same reason I would like to see EU aid tied in some way to tax rates because the Irish have got rich by letting the EU build their roads whilst they kept taxes low to encourage companies to move there, I don't begrudge the Irish that but it time they started paying their way now and help the other members in the same way that they have been helped.

As for it being democracy that the larger countries have a bigger influence, of course, but it's highly unproportional. The recent reduction of seats in the European Parliament have further weakened the smaller countries. I don't think the Parliament is needed at all in the first place.

Actually the smaller countries have more say (per person) than the bigger states.

Look at Malta with 1 seat per 100,000 people whilst Germany has 1 seat per 800,000 and this is set to be altered by the constitution even further with the minimum amount of seats per nation raised and the maximum number of seats per nation lowered.