Is the EU doomed?

plasmaguy · 14-05-2012 7:34pm #1

I used to be in favour of the EU.

Lately though I get the feeling its doomed to failure, despite the best interests of everyone.

It was a big ask to bring such a diverse group of people and cultures together. For example this is a bit of a stereotype but southern Europeans appear to be pretty feckless, refuse to pay tax properly, it's as bad in Italy as in Greece or not far off it when it comes to tax evasion, etc etc.

Northern Europeans on the other hand are very strict and seem to live in permanent austerity, ie the Germans, Danish, Scandanavians.

The Greeks want all the benefits of Eurozone membership but none of the costs, such as paying their taxes properly. They want money from the EU/IMF but no conditions...such behaviour would bankrupt the EU/IMF who don't have unlimited funds and can only loan money, not give it away for free which would cause inflation if they did.

There's also other questions like a lack of democracy over decision making, with faceless unelected technocrats in Europe deciding interest rates, money supply and so on.

While the EU was good in theory, it's just proved to be a disaster in practice.

When you centralise decision making and strip people of a democratic say over big decisions, you are asking for trouble. The EU is more like the USSR now than the USA.

endurodave · 14-05-2012 7:46pm

Id have to agree with what you said there especially regarding the technocrats. but as for the northern countries i disagree with the austere comment as they did live well but are very responsible with matters of finance.

The eu will plough on weather we agree with it or not but it is becoming increasingly detached from the electorate. The only way to bring it back to the people would be to have a direct democratic system like they have in Switzerland but that's wishing. Not to mention it would be a nightmare to implement and id say they wouldn't like the idea of giving the people more of a say.

plasmaguy · 14-05-2012 8:30pm

A directly elected president of the EU would be a start, with the same powers as the president of the United States and who could appoint a cabinet and be directly responsible to the people.

In the EU there is just so many layers and power is so split up and there's no man or woman at the top to take responsibility and hire and fire people and make the big decisions.

Instead we have what would be like in the US, New York state deciding what's best for the rest of the US, New York being the equivalent of Germany for example.

In Europe often what happens is what's good for Germany is bad for Greece or what's good for Greece is bad for Germany, the latest fiscal crisis being an example. If Greece had all its debts written off that would be good for Greece but bad for Germany and German banks.

How about something that's good for everyone?

timbyr · 14-05-2012 8:53pm

I'm curious. What is the issue with technocracy. Ideologically my preference would be towards a technocratic or meritocratic for of governance.

I am unsure why if something is not democratic it is inferred to be an inferior form of government.
The administration and operation of the EU would appear to me to be working in a much more efficient manner in comparison to the individual member states parliaments and public bodies.

endurodave · 14-05-2012 9:01pm

Although it would be helpful to have an overall presedent there is a direct contradiction form your original about technocrats and now you want the president to pick a team ? my view is the more division of power the better (for the people). We already have a presedent of the European commission.

From my time in the states i was under the impression that new york was actually telling the rest of amereica what to do and by ny i mean the banks and by telling i mean holding to ransom. DC is the same all the power is concentrated there its like its own little commune immune to the rest of the states.

The way i see it is for the most part Europeans don't want to centralise powers but the powers that be do and probably will the only way i see to hold things would be the system mentioned in my previous post where the government had to ask the people on all issues of national importance.

plasmaguy · 14-05-2012 9:02pm

timbyr wrote: »

I'm curious. What is the issue with technocracy. Ideologically my preference would be towards a technocratic or meritocratic for of governance.

I am unsure why if something is not democratic it is inferred to be an inferior form of government.
The administration and operation of the EU would appear to me to be working in a much more efficient manner in comparison to the individual member states parliaments and public bodies.

Because its self serving and shady deals are done behind closed doors and no-one even finds out about them, which is the very epitome of the EU.

For example, in Ireland you have page after page after page and program after program on radio stations and TV covering our own politics.

And how much coverage does EU decisions get? Only when there is a referendum but aside from that not a fraction of domestic politics.

So there is only a very small scrutiny in the media of what the EU technocrats are doing, and very little of that media is critical.

There are lots more reasons why its not good for technocrats to make decisions which are not answerable to the people.

endurodave · 14-05-2012 9:11pm

timbyr wrote: »

I'm curious. What is the issue with technocracy. Ideologically my preference would be towards a technocratic or meritocratic for of governance.

I am unsure why if something is not democratic it is inferred to be an inferior form of government.
The administration and operation of the EU would appear to me to be working in a much more efficient manner in comparison to the individual member states parliaments and public bodies.

Im all for technocrats in the true sense of the word experts in their field if they are democratically elected.

But politicians picking their cronies as advisors is not ideal if you ask me, plus this way usually winds up to be quite self serving as they are not directly accountable to the electorate

timbyr · 14-05-2012 9:17pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

Because its self serving and shady deals are done behind closed doors and no-one even finds out about them, which is the very epitome of the EU.

As compared to? I can't agree it is any more or less transparent than a democratic government.

For example, in Ireland you have page after page after page and program after program on radio stations and TV covering our own politics.

And how much coverage does EU decisions get? Only when there is a referendum but aside from that not a fraction of domestic politics.

So there is only a very small scrutiny in the media of what the EU technocrats are doing, and very little of that media is critical.

That isn't a problem with the form of governance but rather the media and the degree of interest in the populace.
It certainly not a direct consequence of having a non parliamentary democracy.

There are lots more reasons why its not good for technocrats to make decisions which are not answerable to the people.

Sorry but that hasn't convinced me. Being answerable to the people seems to be something I see quite a lot on this forum, but I haven't seen it being particularly well defined.

Edit: I probably should say I find that the European Commission and European Parliament to be more akin to a representative democracy rather than a technocracy.

fianna saor · 14-05-2012 9:28pm

at any type of eu ireland are going to be eating at the kids table, if the union does continue i can see it becoming less democratic as the years go on and the likes of germany controlling the situation

plasmaguy · 14-05-2012 10:29pm

fianna saor wrote: »

at any type of eu ireland are going to be eating at the kids table, if the union does continue i can see it becoming less democratic as the years go on and the likes of germany controlling the situation

Pretty much sums up the situation, I can't put it any better.

Even the biggest Europhiles in Ireland would agree with this summation and worst of all are in favour of a situation where the big boys have more influence than the small boys and call the shots. Big boys forced credit down our throats few years ago and now forcing us to pay it back, but unfortunately very few Irish people were involved in this banking and development fiasco, the people who were are now living in Switzerland or Miami or New York while the rest of us pay.

plasmaguy · 14-05-2012 10:31pm

timbyr wrote: »

As compared to? I can't agree it is any more or less transparent than a democratic government.

That isn't a problem with the form of governance but rather the media and the degree of interest in the populace.
It certainly not a direct consequence of having a non parliamentary democracy.

Sorry but that hasn't convinced me. Being answerable to the people seems to be something I see quite a lot on this forum, but I haven't seen it being particularly well defined.

Edit: I probably should say I find that the European Commission and European Parliament to be more akin to a representative democracy rather than a technocracy.

Please...you know perfectly well the European Parliament has no control or influence over interest rates, the supply of money, the EU/IMF programmes for Greece and Ireland and any number of major economic issues.

stringed theory · 14-05-2012 10:36pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

Lately though I get the feeling its doomed to failure, despite the best interests of everyone.

Could this be a problem of perception, due to over reliance on UK media sources?
One of the main problems with the EU, particularly in Ireland, is the lack of a high profile pan European news source. There's Euronews, which isn't even on the basic cable TV package where I live. Years ago there was a newspaper called the European ( before it was bought out by eurosceptics and failed). We need something like that now.
But to answer your question: no, of course it's not doomed.

oscarBravo · 14-05-2012 10:56pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

A directly elected president of the EU would be a start, with the same powers as the president of the United States and who could appoint a cabinet and be directly responsible to the people.

Directly elected how? One EU citizen, one vote? How often do you suppose the good people of France and Germany would elect an Irish or Maltese or Slovakian president?

As for turning the EU into the US, good luck getting that one past the Euroskeptics.

Instead we have what would be like in the US, New York state deciding what's best for the rest of the US, New York being the equivalent of Germany for example.

No, we don't have that. In fact, the EU structures are fairly carefully designed to give power disproportionately to smaller states.

How about something that's good for everyone?

Such as?

timbyr · 14-05-2012 11:17pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

Please...you know perfectly well the European Parliament has no control or influence over interest rates, the supply of money, the EU/IMF programmes for Greece and Ireland and any number of major economic issues.

Are you seriously suggesting that any central bank should be under the direct control or influence of the the legislature or executive?
There are reasons for the independent management of central banks, but it still governed by law as enacted by the legislature. There is nothing special about the ECB in this regard.

By the way, the original Greek bailout was not an EU bailout, but a bilateral agreement outside the EU institutions. It was later moved to EFSF, which I can see as leading to a much greater degree of transparency.
And the current bailouts to Ireland and Greece are managed by the EFSF and the EFSM, funnily enough are run under the supervision of the European Commission and the ECB.

plasmaguy · 14-05-2012 11:51pm

timbyr wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that any central bank should be under the direct control or influence of the the legislature or executive?
There are reasons for the independent management of central banks, but it still governed by law as enacted by the legislature. There is nothing special about the ECB in this regard.

By the way, the original Greek bailout was not an EU bailout, but a bilateral agreement outside the EU institutions. It was later moved to EFSF, which I can see as leading to a much greater degree of transparency.
And the current bailouts to Ireland and Greece are managed by the EFSF and the EFSM, funnily enough are run under the supervision of the European Commission and the ECB.

Like I said, faceless technocrats largely accountable only to German and French leaders and could give a damn about Ireland. This is the reality.

timbyr · 14-05-2012 11:54pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

Like I said, faceless technocrats largely accountable only to German and French leaders and could give a damn about Ireland. This is the reality.

Yes, completely faceless.

I'm still not agreeing that the EU is a entirely technocratic organisation. It has far too many similarities to representational democracy. Something which has been increasing with each successive European treaty.

K-9 · 14-05-2012 11:58pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

Please...you know perfectly well the European Parliament has no control or influence over interest rates, the supply of money, the EU/IMF programmes for Greece and Ireland and any number of major economic issues.

Not being flippant, but you say that as if it's a bad thing?

Parliaments generally don't have controls over central banks for good reasons.

K-9 · 15-05-2012 12:02am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Directly elected how? One EU citizen, one vote? How often do you suppose the good people of France and Germany would elect an Irish or Maltese or Slovakian president?

Always wondered about that one, the current provisions gave us a president most never heard of and not from France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain or the UK, countries with probably half the EU population. Democracy would probably mean a candidate from one of these would always get in, leaving the smaller countries sidelined.

Scofflaw · 15-05-2012 7:52am

K-9 wrote: »

Always wondered about that one, the current provisions gave us a president most never heard of and not from France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain or the UK, countries with probably half the EU population. Democracy would probably mean a candidate from one of these would always get in, leaving the smaller countries sidelined.

Ganley's suggestion is an electoral college similar to the US (no surprise there), which would allow disproportions of population to be smoothed out to some extent. Under the circumstances, an obvious first step might be to have the President elected by the EP, which is likely to produce a result in line with political rather than national groupings.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View · 15-05-2012 1:15pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ganley's suggestion is an electoral college similar to the US (no surprise there), which would allow disproportions of population to be smoothed out to some extent. Under the circumstances, an obvious first step might be to have the President elected by the EP, which is likely to produce a result in line with political rather than national groupings.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You mean a process somewhat similar to this one?

Scofflaw · 15-05-2012 3:22pm

View wrote: »

You mean a process somewhat similar to this one?

Yes indeed - after all, why reinvent the wheel? The next election of a Commission President is likely to involve rather more visible party candidates, too - last time, the only party candidate as such was Cohn-Bendit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

fly_agaric · 16-05-2012 7:09pm

timbyr wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that any central bank should be under the direct control or influence of the the legislature or executive?
There are reasons for the independent management of central banks.

off topic, but is there such a thing as "independence" in these issues? Is, for eg, setting the money policy purely technocratic - I would have thought ideology and politics come into it somewhere? Are these independent central banks (like ECB) not more likely to weigh the wishes of the finance industry when they decide things?

Dotsie~tmp · 17-05-2012 4:18am

The disdain for the electorates over the past few years has given me a turn against the EU. Its quasi democratic roots are shakey. Potentially dangerous even. Extremist left/right backlash may follow sadly. History repeats. I still think extraordinary reform and action can save it.

meglome · 17-05-2012 4:58am

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

The disdain for the electorates over the past few years has given me a turn against the EU.

What disdain?

Scofflaw · 17-05-2012 5:39am

fly_agaric wrote: »

off topic, but is there such a thing as "independence" in these issues? Is, for eg, setting the money policy purely technocratic - I would have thought ideology and politics come into it somewhere? Are these independent central banks (like ECB) not more likely to weigh the wishes of the finance industry when they decide things?

There's a variety of potential dangers for any "independent" organisation - our own Financial Regulator and Central Bank are viewed as having suffered from 'regulatory capture', which is where those who regulate an industry, through repeated and close contacts with the industry, come to have too much sympathy with the views of the industry they're regulating.

Whether that's a danger for the ECB is an interesting question. It's certainly much less of a danger than it was for our Financial Regulator, for several reasons - particularly: (a) the ECB has no national home, which makes them less likely to be inspired to assist "their" national finance industry; (b) the ECB has relatively few regulatory functions - the majority of these are at the national level; and (c) the ECB operates at quite a different level from national regulators, and at a greater remove from the financial industry.

I would say that the ECB sees itself as an organisation that is self-consciously European in scope, and also sees itself as entrusted with a very strong and very specific legal mandate to protect the eurozone monetary system from the financial industry. A such, its besetting sin is going to be the arrogance that results from taking itself too seriously, and a likely blindness to where ideology is substituting for evidence-based economics, or caution is substituting for wisdom.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dotsie~tmp · 17-05-2012 9:43pm

meglome wrote: »

What disdain?

Thx Richard.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0517/fiscal-treaty-referendum.html

Lantus · 17-05-2012 9:50pm

We are constantly reminded that diversity is a core part of a healthy economy and yet moving towards the same currency and same tax and same regulations goes against all that. The diversity of countries diluted as corporate brands exercise the same product and services in every country. The EU was in principle a good idea. As mankind has developed forming larger groups beyong tribes or towns into countries and unions has and will produce greater things like space travel or cern and investment into areas like science that smaller groups simply could not achieve.

BUT, we have never stopped to ask ourselves what the end game is and why? How much power should these super states have? Why should we have a single currency, how are larger unions accountable?

Ultimately people as individuals have a relativley small sphere of influence and interest in their own town or village and beyond that you really need a passion to engage in what is essentially long distance politics.

I really feel like that I was dragged into the EU powerless to stop or question anything and it doesn't look set to change any time soon.

I believe that we need to go 'local' again. Local food and services and micro economies that serve an area and people in those areas autonomous and in control. There is no reason not to have a larger entity like a union but it needs to be better represented and not so interfering.

fly_agaric · 18-05-2012 12:20am

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a variety of potential dangers for any "independent" organisation - our own Financial Regulator and Central Bank are viewed as having suffered from 'regulatory capture', which is where those who regulate an industry, through repeated and close contacts with the industry, come to have too much sympathy with the views of the industry they're regulating.

Whether that's a danger for the ECB is an interesting question. It's certainly much less of a danger than it was for our Financial Regulator, for several reasons - particularly: (a) the ECB has no national home, which makes them less likely to be inspired to assist "their" national finance industry; (b) the ECB has relatively few regulatory functions - the majority of these are at the national level; and (c) the ECB operates at quite a different level from national regulators, and at a greater remove from the financial industry.

I would say that the ECB sees itself as an organisation that is self-consciously European in scope, and also sees itself as entrusted with a very strong and very specific legal mandate to protect the eurozone monetary system from the financial industry. A such, its besetting sin is going to be the arrogance that results from taking itself too seriously, and a likely blindness to where ideology is substituting for evidence-based economics, or caution is substituting for wisdom.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Interesting argument. I was thinking that perhaps they could be overly concerned about the fate of big European financial firms when making decisions? ("too big to fail").

Independence will help shield them from any political considerations (public disgust with this industry and its titans across Europe).
The ECB is operating at a European rather than a national level, but these firms are also.

Scofflaw · 18-05-2012 12:42am

Lantus wrote: »

We are constantly reminded that diversity is a core part of a healthy economy and yet moving towards the same currency and same tax and same regulations goes against all that. The diversity of countries diluted as corporate brands exercise the same product and services in every country. The EU was in principle a good idea. As mankind has developed forming larger groups beyong tribes or towns into countries and unions has and will produce greater things like space travel or cern and investment into areas like science that smaller groups simply could not achieve.

BUT, we have never stopped to ask ourselves what the end game is and why? How much power should these super states have? Why should we have a single currency, how are larger unions accountable?

Ultimately people as individuals have a relativley small sphere of influence and interest in their own town or village and beyond that you really need a passion to engage in what is essentially long distance politics.

I really feel like that I was dragged into the EU powerless to stop or question anything and it doesn't look set to change any time soon.

I believe that we need to go 'local' again. Local food and services and micro economies that serve an area and people in those areas autonomous and in control. There is no reason not to have a larger entity like a union but it needs to be better represented and not so interfering.

That would be my personal preference as well, but the rules reflect the reality. If we're going to buy internationally branded products from multinational companies that are made in China, while exporting our products to Egypt - and we do those things, for reasons that are nothing to do with the EU, and everything to do with personal choice and cost - then both the EU, and the EU's "interference", follow naturally.

It's exactly the same process as sees individual and local high street shops being driven out of business by out of town retail parks full of branded chains and hypermarkets. Nobody forces it to happen, nearly everybody laments the loss of their unique high street, and nearly everybody drives out to the retail park on a Saturday to do their weekly shopping, because it costs less and there's more choice.

Similarly, the little localised economies (and thus real local decision making) won't reappear until that's something as cheap and easy as the current globalised systems of production. Not because there's some kind of plot against them, but for the same reason they disappeared in the first place - people value cheapness, convenience, reliability and choice over localness and uniqueness.

And so we have ever bigger trade and consumer blocs, and those blocs are constantly running into new areas where things can be made cheaper, more convenient, more reliable, and offer greater choice for their consumers than before - at the cost of a little more uniformity of regulation, because uniformity is more efficient and less costly than diversity. And to be fair to the EU, it generally tries for uniformity of outcome rather than uniformity of procedure, something which isn't very apparent when you're looking at a long checklist of bureaucratic rules dreamed up by someone in the Irish civil service as Ireland's method of implementing an EU Directive.

Nor, again, are those rules actually more interfering, more cumbersome, or more complex than what they replace - usually, they're the reverse, and when they're not, it's usually because they extend to fill in important gaps in the legislation they replace, gaps which would have been filled in with time even without the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lantus · 18-05-2012 12:37pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Similarly, the little localised economies (and thus real local decision making) won't reappear until that's something as cheap and easy as the current globalised systems of production. Not because there's some kind of plot against them, but for the same reason they disappeared in the first place - people value cheapness, convenience, reliability and choice over localness and uniqueness.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well your right. This hinges on my (and many others) belief in that the other side of the coin of this financial disaster is the fact that we have passed peak oil sometime ago and are now on the other side of the bell curve.

Given the current cost of petrol compared to the economic downturn it makes no sense its so high espeically as if we believe the more confident detractors in that there is 'loads of oil out there' if so then why does it cost so much??? Simple, because you will pay more as a product becomes more scarce.

Infinite growth in any economy is feasible so long as you have infinite energy resources to back it up. As we have now passed the point at which over 50% of the current fossil fuel resources have been used up the failed paradigm of our economies is now laid bare for all to see.

The situation in Greece may well speed up the rate at which our oil dependant economies start to fail. After all, most economic activity is achieved throught car and vehicle travel by consumers. Right now most people have ceased this as the cost of travelling is simply so expensive other than for work or essential goods.

Its not that we are dependant on greece for oil or gas, its just that the financial fear it will generate will impact on prices overall and peopes confidence.

The fact that all oil reserves are state secrets doesn't help matters much except to keep the population in the dark as to the true nature of where we are in terms of the decline of society as we know it.

The only real threat short term is food and water. Food in particular needs a great deal of time to create even with land and soil and seeds. Waiting until the shops no longer get filled is a year too late.

7 billion people on this planet and I'd say at least 5 billion are in existence purely because of oil dependant economies since the early part of the century. Take the oil away though.......

oscarBravo · 18-05-2012 12:43pm

Lantus wrote: »

Infinite growth in any economy is feasible so long as you have infinite energy resources to back it up.

Fair enough, but you're conflating "energy" with "oil".

Is the EU doomed?

Comments