EU politics

[thedarkproject]

I'll be quite glad if the whole European Union project goes belly-up as a result of all the recent wrangling. We have the current EU president saying that the constitution will not be renegotiated - despite France and Holland, quite important countries, voting against it - and in fact claiming that "I really believe neither the French nor the Dutch rejected the constitutional treaty".

Now, as I understand it, the wording of the French referendum was "Approuvez-vous le projet de loi qui autorise la ratification du traité établissant une Constitution pour l'Europe? " which is essentially, 'do you approve of the bill authorising the ratification of the European constitution?' The Dutch version was "Bent U voor of tegen instemming door Nederland met het verdrag tot vaststelling van een grondwet voor Europa?" which Wikipedia tells me means "Are you for or against approval by the Netherlands of the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe?" (Is that right, spillher?)

Both seem pretty clear to me, but no, Mr Juncker - current president of the EU and Prime Minister of Luxembourg, a country right next to France and not far from Holland - is claiming the people didn't vote the way that they did. Whether you are for the European Union or against it, is that the sort of politician you want in power - one who refuses to take not one but two national referendums seriously?

And on top of that we have the French saying that they want the EU to stop paying Britain's rebate, which was created to offset the fact that we get very little back in terms of agricultural subsidy, yet are utterly unwilling to make any concessions with regards to the disproportionate amount of such subsidies that go to their farmers. France isn't a poor Eastern European country, it's just one that refuses to reform its industry and is happier for others to subsidise it.

Why do we do all this? It seems like a tremendous waste of cash and a source of limitless antagonism, over someone's impractical utopian dream.

Comments

[mezzalunna.livejournal.com]

I used to think European politics in general were bad, until I moved to the US. Working on going back home as we speak. Can't wait.

[soldatengrab.livejournal.com]

as you have seen in my journal, I'm staunchly pro-europe, The constitution was scuppered because things like the veto would then be removed, meaning countries would be forced to work for the greater good, rather than their own vested interests. Some countries, ,like Germany and Italy most notably, and to a large extent Britain, have worked to do this, but coutries like France, will only serve Europe as long as it serves them, this is the french way, and always has been. Self preservation has always been at the forefront of french life.

Charles De Gaulle himself quoted that Europe needed to be a "Europe of the states", when tackling the european union, but that time has long gone, Churchill knocked it far better on the head, "Europe of the states? United states of Europe is what we need"

The eu has evolved massively in a short time, from a knee jerk reaction to avoid a third world war, to a massive economic power, this constitution has set the progress of europe back thirty years. its a black day for europe, it really is.

[thedarkproject]

I knew this would get your attention. :P

I don't know about the political elite, but I don't think that the average voter in Holland or France will mention the veto as the reason they voted no - they're more likely to talk about sovereignty, or immigration, worries over increasingly liberalised trade, or bureaucracy. The problem with the EU as it stands is that it's been a project of politicians who've largely advanced without consulting the public.

All countries have to be selfish to some degree but that is what democracy is about - we all have different needs and expect our governments to meet them. Try and merge too many people, languages and cultures in one place and with one single set of rules and you breed discontent. I think that's why the USA 'works' (for a given value of work, obviously) and the USofEurope never will.

In quoting Charles De Gaulle and Winston Churchill, I think you are forgetting two facts. Firstly, that De Gaulle actually vetoed the UK's entry to the EEC, in large part because the UK was too close to the USA's position. (This was not something he had complained about 20 years previous in WW2, but ho hum.) Secondly, Winston Churchill did not include the UK in his vision of Europe, as he was hoping for a four-power world, comprising of the British Empire, Europe, the US and the Soviet Union.

Some would say that the UK, unlike most other European nations, would do just as well outside the EU, having a relationship like Switzerland's instead.

[fiendil.livejournal.com]

Got some of my more Tory anti-Europe friends who say that most of our trade is done with the US and other non-european countries, so we don't stand to benefit from being tied closer in.

And yeah, the only way we're ever gonna get a consensus which could set up a democracy in a USA style way, is gonna be if someone pulls off a unification by force. And we know how that ended last time someone tried that.

[soldatengrab.livejournal.com]

most of should be irrelevant, it should be the fact that SOME trade is conducted through europe which should be a guiding factor. If you set up a democracy by force people resist. Look at germany post WW1, Democracy was installed by force there, and the people revolted, and reinstalled a dictatorship, albeit with Fuhrer rather than kaiser. total integration is a LONG way away, I'm pretty confident in saying it wont happen in our lifetime (especially not after this constitution). The union has benefits, untold benefits, purely in the fact that through such cooperation between states (largely in *surprise surprise* the balkans) several costly wars have been avoided. Im of the persuasion that, if the union has saved so much as one life, it is a worthwhile establishment.

[njaard.livejournal.com]

That's totally specious, the UK does hardly any more trade with the US than any other european country only because the US is bigger. I bet Germany trades more with the US than it does with France.

You make the EU bigger than the US, and behold, you'll find that the UK will trade with the EU more than it does with the US.

P.S. conservatives are weak of mind

[soldatengrab.livejournal.com]

its like george bush, we hate bush because he does what is right for america, he has gone a long way into ensuring his nations prosperity, but yes, that has been at the cost of world stability. to be honest, if I were American, I'd vote for him, he's stood up for american low petrol prices and other such things, just a shame our leaders dont have the clout to do the same.

The largest nail in the EU's coffin, which outraged me, and several EU politicians, is that The EU parliament voted AGAINST having an independent watchdog to ensure that MEP's expenses were not misappropriated, after story after story of MEP's filtering away hundreds of thousands of pounds of expenses. Bring back the watchdog, force it through. The EU is corrupt, I'm the first to admit it. Lets remove this corruption, forcibly if needs be.

[njaard.livejournal.com]

Actually, I ate george bush because he does what's right for:
5. His bank account
4. His buddies' bank account
3. Whatever kind of christian mythology mumbo jumbo has been indoctrinated into him
2. What will get him the most votes
1. What dick cheney told him to do

midnight rant

[njaard.livejournal.com]

No, the USA "works" (if that's what you want to call it...) because it's working. Europe in its current state works for the same reason.

If Europe tomorrow gets a constitution all of a sudden and your home address becomes Nottingham, Great Britain, European Union, then you'll all complain for a while, then you'll get used to it, and then you'll be better off (economically) as a result.

Sure, the EU politicians are stupid, corrupt, greedy, and incompetent. Welcome to politics and join the club; the United States of America is no different, nor is the United Kingdom, nor the United States of Europe.

Additionally, the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland need to realise that their silly banknotes aren't what give them an identity. I can be an american (and use ugly greenbacks) while still being a californian and hugging trees and wearing sandals.

Re: midnight rant

[thedarkproject]

I think there's a significant difference though. If you go from Texas to Michigan or from Kentucky to Rhode Island then at least you know that people speak the same language (pretty much), vote for roughly the same political parties, have similar attitudes towards social security and taxation, etc. The cultural differences across national borders in the EU are larger than those across state borders in the US. For instance, British working hours would not be acceptable in France, and France's tax levels wouldn't be acceptable here. That sort of pattern is repeated across Europe for different factors.

It's quite possible that, in the event of some form of union, that 200 years down the line it would be much as the USA is today, and we'd be as happy with it as most US citizens are. But it's equally possible that we'd go through a civil war in the process too. Closer union will mean several entire countries with distinct cultural and ethnic backgrounds have to make significant changes to their way of life in order for there to be some semblance of 'fairness' to Europe as a whole, and generally speaking people do not want to do that.

[lost-in-moose.livejournal.com]

I'm rushing out now so just a quick post.

Why would the EU want to centralise and homogenise it's laws/taxes/forces etc when it's greatest asset is the diversity of it's member nations.

Besides which the statement that you can't please all the people all of the time is especially applicable here. The USA works because it is one nation with essentially one people, where the USA totally and utterly fails is in dealing with those who do not conform rigidly to it's system. More to the point though, the USA has different levels to it's legal system, it's uppermost legal scheme is fairly lightweight and the principle bulk of it's laws are implemented/decided at the state level. What the EU proposes doing isn't even something as sensible as that.

I think that government should go the "other" way, rather than centralising it's needs to decentralise so that it can better fit the people.

The economic benefits of being within the EU trading block are very clear cut and so this can be used as a bludgeon to bring in nations that would otherwise be unacceptable. For example i'm personally opposed to Turkey being in the EU due to it's absolutely horrific human rights record, but by forcing them to reach certain standards in specific areas (like human rights etc) the EU could have then offered them entry into it. In the end the whole issue of Turkey and the EU is outside the scope of this and i'm off into town. Laters!

[soldatengrab.livejournal.com]

ill agree with you, but come from a different angle, America works on two levels, the state level, and the federal level. Most decisions, yes, never go to the federal level, as is the way with europe, and each state has its own laws, so how is this different from europe.

Ethnic diversity is a wonderful thing, and there is no way in hell that any language is going to become the sole European language, we are a diverse continent, this is never going to change. Government should centralise, but yes, in a way that the Union can veto any specific cases, as it does in several areas as it is.

I'm opposed to Turkey being in the EU for several reasons (and feel free to hit me with the right wing pillow), firstly, Europe, as america, is diverse sure, but is largely white, european, and christian, this we all agree on, and as such we hold certain values and ideals. An islamic nation, of a different ethnic build would really upset the balance of power. Secondly, turkey has been told time and time again, leave cyprus, and you can join the EU, you invaded cyprus, you are not allowed there. let cyprus be. Turkey said no. The eu said ok, well, remove the death penalty, and promise to leave cyprus SOMETIME in the future. Turkey still said no. The Eu then turned round and said, ok, well how about we compromise. To me politics, as we see with britain and france, is all about who is most stubborn, as they will get their way in the end.

[bedlamborn.livejournal.com]

And Turkey does not lie in Europe. Another way to say no to them. And as long they continues to occupy northern cyprus there should be no chance of them entering EU.

[lost-in-moose.livejournal.com]

Well i disagree with your reasons, for one thing i dont think it matters about the race thing, lets face it Britain is only nominally if at all majority white and i'm personally an Atheist so the religion aspect can go.

besides which its precisely because we're such a mono-culture that we risk becoming insular and ignorant.

I dont want us to be another USA, the US isn't the greatest example of everything on Earth, they do some stuff well but to be honest they have the fabulous advantage that their enormous environment bestows on them.

If we're looking for examples of ways of doing things then for any specific thing like education, hospital/medicine, police, or just the general way we'd like our society to grow and behave then can we please stop fawning ovr the US?

[soldatengrab.livejournal.com]

I have to add, this constitution, should remove itself from what it is, and work as an american style (horrific to say I know) constitution, guaranteeing certain freedoms and rights to citizens of europe and binding them together, under the same flag, as brothers.

[lost-in-moose.livejournal.com]

Yes ok, a lightweight upper legal set of principles that ensure basic human rights, and a harder more closely defined set of laws that uphold those principles but tailored at the national level for each country.

Thus ensuring that national differences and opinions are respected but at the same time enforcing decent human behaviour with the reward being better trade arangements that benefit those within the EU.

The problem is that isn't what the EU constitution proposes. Thus it is cack.

[soldatengrab.livejournal.com]

agreed, so we are all in favour then, bring in the EU constitution of human rights!

[njaard.livejournal.com]

The US has a bill of rights guaranteeing us various rights that my stupid government is more than happy to ignore when it suits them.

The UN decrees fundamental human rights that all of our governments ignore whenever it suits them.

[thedarkproject]

The problem is, where do you stop with the rights? I'm sure many European countries would be happy to say "Humans have the right to not be asked to work more than 35hrs per week", knowing full well that they generally meet this requirement and Britain does not.

(Incidentally, I am actually in favour of shorter working hours, but not in favour of a majority across Europe imposing a rule upon us here.)

As you imply, we should probably concentrate more on enforcing the rights we already set up. The amount of hypocrisy shown during the Iraq war was very sad. (eg. parading of Iraqi prisoners was considered a useful tool to end the resistance, but any parading of alliance prisoners brought frenzied mentions of the Geneva Convention from our politicians.)

[lost-in-moose.livejournal.com]

I'm in favour of shorter working hours and higher national minimum wage! Whilst simultaneously lowering the dole!

All in favour of 4 day weeks and servants we can all afford say aye! :D

[lost-in-moose.livejournal.com]

Well kinda, i mean i'm in favour of the Carrot and Stick approach for getting people to agree and abide by some kind of convention on human rights, but like Njaard pointed out the UN already has that and we ignore it, especially the US and UK with the whole holding prisoners without charge thing.

My problem with the EU Constitution is that it isn't about human rights, it's to wide ranging and affects too many things that are the basis of our various nations diversity.

I think that in it's current form it would be bad for the UK and most of the rest of Europe to signup too. Too wide ranging in scope whilst also removing the ability for individual nations to veto the parts of it that dont suit their culture.

[bedlamborn.livejournal.com]

I think that EU could be good if the agricultural subsidy were thrown out of it and the money EU has is used for science, research and other good things instead of paying the farmers. All swedish political parties wants these subsidys thrown out.

[thedarkproject]

Yeah. France wanted to keep 40% of the expenditure on agriculture while cutting spending on research and transport, which is foolish. If farming is such an important part of French life then most of the subsidy for it should come from their taxes, not ours.

[bedlamborn.livejournal.com]

Sweden had abolished all agriculture subsidy before we entered EU and after we had to restore that again. That was a total waste. Let it be dead and gon and those countries that wants them let them pay it themselves.

The french are so afraid of the farmers and their strikes, it is getting ridicolous. They have to ralize that farming is not the future.

[tinker-goth.livejournal.com]

I think the major mistake was the lack of explanation to the public about it. Politically minded people will seek the knowledge but the general joe bloggs wont. A newsnight programma in Paris the night before the french voted was the first thing I watched that really offered some explanation although it was of course very biased to each side.

I agree with the principals of being togther in Europe, to be honest I would much prefer to be with Europe than America any day, but they need to stop being stubborn and make adjustments otherwise it is never gonna go through.

[thedarkproject]

You weren't informed because it wasn't in our government's interest to inform you, as a failure abroad on this scale was exactly what all the major parties wanted so that we didn't have to go through the process here. I doubt the French and Dutch were as uninformed, though. A lot of very varied opinions were shared and there was widespread advertising and campaigning from both camps.

[tinker-goth.livejournal.com]

I had seen in interviews and through talking to my french and dutch relatives that many of the people who voted said they voted know because they didnt know enough about it. maybe i should have stated it previously.

Though i do think we should have more info as if it does go through it will affect us and the way all the other countries vote will in turn as well.

[thedarkproject]

Maybe the no votes in those cases are defensive, borne of a distrust of the system, where voting yes in the past has traditionally meant signing up to something far bigger than originally intended? (eg. Most people who voted yes to join the Common Market never thought that Brussels would end up limiting our working hours or hearing court cases about our human rights legislation.)

I'm sure more info will come if we were to be asked to vote on it, which we're not. Despite what the EU president was insisting, the thing is pretty much dead for the foreseeable future so it's not much of an issue.

[thedarkproject]

Note to self: nobody is willing or able to pick up on my minor geographical error (now amended). Not sure whether this is good or bad.

[thedarkproject]

Damn you ;) I underestimated how big Belgium was, that's all. Mainly because it seemed like I went across most of it by train in less than 2hrs...