Barroso tells of plan for a federal EU treaty before 2014 in his annual speech.

Oh i am putting here in the main section...because it is such a huge story it affects all areas of our political life really.

BluntGuy wrote: »

Well he didn't mention an army. He doesn't exclude it, but his statements don't really lead me to think that's the first thing he had in mind. A common defense strategy doesn't necessitate a supranational army.



The idea of an EU army doesn't exactly fill me with joy, but again is that what's really on the table here? Coordinated peacekeeping efforts are a far cry from some of the activities America has undertaken in recent decades.



Oh okay. So what.



No valid points at all?



Fair enough. Why?



But we have common interests whether we like it or not. I think that was large part of Barosso's point. It is in all of our common interests to ensure that climate change is tackled for example, or that we have energy security, that we can compete in a globalised world, that we have a functioning currency. I dunno how you can say you don't share in those interests.



But you do to Ireland, presumably. Why is that?



So wait it's only about individual interests now?



Well his argument is that by pooling our sovereignty we actually have more power in a globalised world. I mean, realistically, what can Ireland achieve in a globalised world on its own?



Hm. How would a directly elected president work.



Good thing no one is proposing a system being forced through without the consent, implicit or otherwise of its citizens.



How has it been a disaster?



Why? What's so special about the national level?



Why?

My individual vote is always dominated by my individual interests not entirely but weighted by them.

How has the Euro been a disaster? Hahahahhha
Ok well lets go into that in detail shall we

The economies throughout Europe were never and are still not convergent enough to sustain a common currency. This lack of convergence is nothing to do with institutions either economic or political necessarily but it is a grass roots, up to the top branch, difference from the real economy like jobs and job security up to and including the way debt is collateralized in each state (which is part of what caused the crisis). But i will go back to debt collateralization later.

Lets consider the convergence and divergence issues. In a Europe where such diverse circumstances prevail, with a structural, cost of living, and per capita income differential of no less than 3:1 (which is the actual ratio, among the 12 EMU member states), diverging interests will crop up, and will lead to push-pull-and-tear, which is not quite the political purpose that allegedly inspired the move towards currency integration.

A European single currency could not work, unless, beforehand, there were a political agreement to level out divergences, through gigantic structural and financial compensation. And for this, there never has been, nor does there now exist a single clue—the currency union was worked out without the faintest notion of structural and financial compensation. The little that has been done in that respect, is a drop in the bucket, quite insignificant. Even debt pooling is one drop in the bucket.

Labour force mobility and capital mobilty has remained national we are not as entertwined as people think. There has not been enough migration to flatten out wage differences. With the euro, the nations are barred from applying the tried-and-true instruments of an active conjuncture or employment policy: 1) interest rates are fixed across the euro-zone; 2)"smooth" exchange-rate realignments are no longer possible; and 3) thanks to the stability pact, in particular, state budgets are blocked.Of the four instruments of an active economic policy, three—exchange rate, interest rates, and the budget—have been blocked by the euro. The only remaining instrument is wage-"levelling," which is is a mere euphemism for dragging wage levels down to the average European level.People act as if wages in ny sector being cut is 'A GOOD THING' we are bringing wages down to the Euro level. But no it is not it is natural for some economies to have higher wages than others infact it is good. We are only doing it largley because it is the only thing we can do ...we can't change interest rates.

Certain economies like the German social market model are argueably not even compatible with the Euro.


Now back to debt collateralization in each state and its relation to the ECB's monetory policy tool. Which is collateralied debt or repo agreements. The Fed in America directly purchases actual financial assets which is safer than the way the ECB does it. The ECB purchases debt rather than assets. Typically private debt and public debt that is deemed 'High Quality'. But the criteria for determining what was 'High Quality' debt was stupidly simpy the entry criteria for the EU. So it was very loosely regulated. The criteria are too simple for real world accounting. And the criteria do not really reveal true fiscal solvency or the lack there of. And in fact some regulation meant debt could only be declared as losses on a banks books when the borrower declared it which could mean yers after the actual problem started. In the US the fed imploys tools such as Bond Buying extensively during a crisis to ensure liquidity of the system. We did not have this. Therefore the threat of lack of liquidity from the ECB i believe led to measures that were counter productive when the crisis first broke out here. European legislators pushed and forced the adoption the Basel II measures which were forced into EU law as the CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS DIRECTIVE or the CRN ...it was flawed to say the least. It legally forced all EU banks and the ECB itself (but remember ALL banks in the EU) to rely on standardised assessments of credit risk marketed by two non-European private agencies- Moody’s and S&P......THEY SUCKED ASS .....the forcing of non declaration of losses in debt until it ws too late was simply one forced regulatory flaw which led to the buying debt collateral which was insolvent. This happened particularly in Greece. The ECB was overexposed to debt in some countries banking culture suddenly had falwed and little regulation all accross the EU ..some systems were more vulnerable to this than others.
Why EU legislators forced these errors into legislation is unclear. Whether accounting lawyers should have acted on national company law is unclear Eu law is not meant to contradict nationl company law. But it is clear EU legislators were woefully negligent and incompetent.

The ECB then had huge bad debt on its books..which would weaken the whole system...so it attempted to isolate the whole systems bad debt and eposure to it in certain weaker areas to prevent it spreading...that has not worked.

There is also the absence of a fiscal transfer union.

Small countries and there economies trying to deal with larger economies and converge with them is ...well....mad...difficult...and can wipe out wealth.


On to your other questions ...(there are so many)


It's less Irish ..so what? It is my vote thats what....it is important to me for whatever reasons you want to ridicule and others ....we feel Irish and feel offense at the thought of being asked to be less Irish....that is my position. You have yours i presume which will no doubt weigh in on your decision.

Integration does not serve our best interests for the points i went into above..i cannot exhaust this response too much.

There are also questions as to whether the concept of a republic is convergent with that of a Democracy..so our republic is meant to somehow function under the supranational democracy and those concepts that the republic is meant to protect us from. A republic is very different from a democracy a democracy is a system of government ..a republic is meant to protect the individual from a system of govt.... The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
Generally the agreement is Democracy is rule by an omnipotent majority.

This issue illistrates why transnational democracy is nonsense....democracy is different culturally and all nations have differing ideas of what it is...how do you protect one concept of democracy where it diverges from another?

Transnational republicanism perhaps....

The EU has to many diverging cantons to really work as a democracy..it is too splintered with no clear majority...it would be a state at war with itself....it would rip itself up

Federal Republicanism...hmm better idea

But still i am not convinced. I do not trust officials who have shown such incompetance....i would rather have national level incompetence rather than international level incompetence:P

My vote is usually weighted by my own interests yes and i think that is what any side in a referendum will be after.

Apologies if i have not covered your questions.....and sorry for the long post.

If you do read it though...Read all of it ...

John Mongo wrote: »

I'm praying the OP has never heard of the EU Battlegroups. Their world may just come crashing down.

People need to stop worrying about our neutrality too, we're not neutral so we can't lose it.

I have :-(

The problem is many different cultres will have different ideas of what a federation of nations states vrs a federation of states like the US or Germany.

It is all unique.

It will depend on the treaty that is proposed.

I don't like some of the indications of what it will entail at the moment.

But the best that can be hoped for is that is aims to correct a lot of the errors that the eu has made so far and particularly the ecb. And that means taking responsiblity for them and i have not seen that yet.

To be honest it is the people involved also this current generation f E politicians does not strike me as competant particularly Barroso and Draghi.

Some MEP's went from parochial positions in their own countries to europe quite quickly ...lets be honest we here in Ireland don't send our best and brightest we send Gay Mitchell.

It is not just at EU level that eu projects are mismanaged error rates as a percentage in policy fields of cohesian , energy and transport in certain countries are huge (Spain Italy and Czech Republic being the worst i think).

Abou 80% of EU spending is through nation states and 20% through the EU error rates in misspending account for much monetary loss and one nation state can affect the whole system.

It is not just simply a matter of the EU working well for the EU to work well.

Also ....i am biased...i happen to think this generation of EU personalities are well...not that bright..

MEP'S offer not much value for money...infact i think the euroscpetics are actually the worst and the laziest to be honest. British MEP's are statistically the worst..

You get whoyou elect..but then you can only elect who runs...but for god sake they snet Kilroy as an MEP

Margot Wallstrom (Comissioner) is possibly one of the stupidest propaganda type politicians i have ever seen..she can't even hold an interview without coming off like a plank.

They also have the clumisiest lobbies ....maybe thats a good thing...we actually don't need more EU transparency they are as transparent as grandmas underwear :-D:D They just don't know it.

I would like to see less wasting of money.
Not that our lot are any better ...but at least they are near enough to throw rotten veg at.

This is how Barroso sees the Euro crisis and this is who he blames..and this is how he democratically put it at the G-20
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-19/barroso-blaming-u-dot-s-dot-for-euro-crisis-foolish-investors-say

The federal reserve did not cause the euro crisis...i always said europeans had started banking like Americans only not very good at it... in an economy designed for more regulation..but it is time the ECB europe and member states start taking more accountability. It was the EU's incompetance too not just certain member states..

But for Barosso to see things like that and and actually SAY things like that...hmmm...there is an element of truth...but an element of profound naivety ...

Barosso has said that European parties should now present nominees for a directly elected president.. (by the way EU groups have been actually working on selecting candidates for three years now publically ..no bad thing but well it is confusing when he announces it as if it's news)

Guess who FG suggest ...GUESS...JOHN BRUTON.....it could be worse...infairness it could be a lot worse....*thinks over a few other names* oh dear god yeah it could be a lot worse....
END RANT