give up more irish sovereignty to try save a failing EU?

Amberman

Yip, they messed up this experiments planning, the monitoring, the implementation and the control and the fixes to the problems that have arisen from these failures are nowhere to be seen.

Yeah, sure...lets give them more power.

beeftotheheels

Good grief. An entire thread on what is wrong with the proposed treaty changes without even lip service being paid to what is in the treaties or what changes are required.

There are rules in the treaties about Governments not running excessive deficits or not running up excessive debts. They are in Arts 121 and 126. The problem with those articles is that the procedure has to be invoked by the Council (heads of State) by qualified majority voting, and for years while France and Germany and Italy broke the rules they made clear that they would not countenance a vote on their non-compliance.

So a change is required, to prevent the big boys from not complying and watering down the rules. This is not a watering down of Irish sovereignty. As a little boy we always had to comply with the rules, and we did until a global financial crisis caught us up in the maelstrom. And since then we've been working with everyone else to get back on track.

To change the rules to force Germany to comply is not a surrender of Irish sovereignty, these rules are being applied to us at the moment by virtue of our bailout.

Does anyone in Ireland, at this time, really think that our Government does not need to balance our budget?

Does anyone in Ireland at this time really think we should increase our debt?

I don't think so, I think that everyone in Ireland would be pretty comfortable with the notion that we shouldn't run deficits in excess of 3% GDP and should not have debt in excess of 60% GDP. Since the current rules are being applied to us, and we are complying with them, we have nothing to fear. The fines and sanctions being sought can only be applied to jurisdictions acting in bad faith, we're acting in good faith.

So then, given that the rules are both sensible, and a variation of them is there and binding on us at the moment, the only reason for a no vote is to be contrarian.

Furthermore, Angela cannot really think she can amend 121 and 126 without putting something on the table in return. At a minimum the mandate of the ECB should mirror that of the Fed and give price stability equal footing with jobs, ideally all the constraints on the role of the ECB (other than its independence) should be watered down to give it more freedom to act, and the rules on transfer unions should be amended. As we're already seeing it is likely that the German insistence on PSI in the ESM will be dropped (stable door, bolting horse anyone?).

We have nothing to lose from a change to 121 and 126, and a lot to gain by changes to 123, 125 and 127 in particular.

But hey, lets all vote no because any treaty change is an encroachment on our precious sovereignty rather than waiting to see what the specifics of the treaty change might actually be and whether it might actually benefit us while costing us almost nothing.

Here's a link to the consolidated versions of the treaties in case anyone wants to actually look at the rules.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:SOM:EN:HTML

easychair

beeftotheheels wrote: »

But hey, lets all vote no because any treaty change is an encroachment on our precious sovereignty rather than waiting to see what the specifics of the treaty change might actually be and whether it might actually benefit us while costing us almost nothing.

Perhaps a better approach is to try to consider the long term benefits, as so many of the votes which Ireland has had to take have been accompanied by threats of what will happen in the short term unless Ireland votes the way the bureaucrats and politician want ireland to vote.

Perhaps the best way for Ireland, which seems incapable of governing itself, to cede all sovereignty to another power. However, given Ireland's bloody history of civil unrest when ruled by outsiders, maybe even that solution is not in Irelands best interests in the long term

beeftotheheels

easychair wrote: »

Perhaps the best way for Ireland, which seems incapable of governing itself, to cede all sovereignty to another power. However, given Ireland's bloody history of civil unrest when ruled by outsiders, maybe even that solution is not in Irelands best interests in the long term

Why insist on thinking of the EU as being made up of "outsiders"?

This goes back to the assumption, not borne out by the history of the EU, that if we had, for example, a democratically elected President of the Commission that he or she would be German or French whereas the reality is that he or she would more likely come from a small Member State because German candidate would, in Irish parlance, most likely be "transfer toxic" outside Germany.

In the past we supplied one of the all time most influential commissioners (Peter Sutherland took on a desk job and acquired the powers to make the Competition Commissioner one of the most powerful).

In 1997 had there been such an election, and had she been interested (which she wouldn't have been given the UN job she wanted) had we put Mary Robinson forward she'd have been in with a good chance. I was studying law in London at the time, and the number of students from various member States who envied us our president, and mistakenly our form of democracy (they didn't realize we elected her by accident when BL blew it) was mind blowing.

At the moment we're seeing the big 2 (1?) throwing their weight around and causing carnage.

To my mind this would mean that a democratically elected Commission President (one of the proposals being talked about) and additional Commission powers (the very thing being talked about) could be a good thing since that role would

a) involve a proper democratic mandate, and
b) absent an exceptional candidate from one of the big 2, would probably fall to a candidate from one of the smaller member states with a real mandate to look after the whole, and not just the interests of Germany, France etc

easychair

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Why insist on thinking of the EU as being made up of "outsiders"?

I agree completely. But history seems to demonstrate than many irish people not only do think of others as outsiders, but are also prepared to go to quite extreme lengths to prove that point.

Why you think the solution lies in a fully elected EU, or a more democratic one, or one with more powers, seems uncertain, as the Eu's response to the crises so far is appalling, and has exacerbated the crises. In fact, the EU has contributed to the crises by creating the Euro, despite being warned at the time that this sort of crises was inevitable. hardly the sorts of people I'd want running anything.

recedite

Wibbs wrote: »

If country A holds a referendum over these important documents and country B doesn't, country B gives less input by the electorate on the course of the EU and that countries membership than Country A. Country B's citizens have quite simply less of a say.

The democratically elected Parliament of Country B would have to ratify the treaty. That's representative democracy in action.

As more and more decisions are made in the EU that directly affect local policies this electoral power is less than it was over local policies 20 years ago.

While this is true, it is not necessarily a bad thing.
When the federal govt. sent National Guard troops into Alabama in the 1960's to break up segregated schooling they were overruling local democracy and the Governor of the State. When the mayor of Naas said last week he was no longer going to represent those of African origin, he was forced to stand down by FG national executive, not by his own electorate.
Sometimes a more centralised power can average out the local errors and come up with a common code that everyone can live by successfully; this is the function of a Federal Republic.

easychair

recedite wrote: »

The democratically elected Parliament of Country B would have to ratify the treaty. That's representative democracy in action.

The problem with representative democracy is that it has brought us to this precipice on the edge of a cliff. Brian Cowan and Brian Lenihan can claim that the represented our democracy when they took their disastrous decision to prop up the banks, although no one could claim the decision was democratic.

What is wrong with normal democracy? Why does it have to be watered down in the tattered cloak of "representative democracy". In the context, "representative democracy" is euro-speak for denying the people of the EU democracy. We all, of course, know the answer to that rhetorical question, and the leaders of this representative democracy fear that the people would not vote the correct way, so they pretend that them taking the decision and ignoring the will of the people, is somehow more democratic.

Many Emperors and Kings in the past though along the same lines, and would not allow the people any say thinking they knew best and the people must be prevented from themselves.

George Orwell would have made hay from the term "representative Democracy".

In the context, "Representative Democracy" has no more democratic legitimacy that had the term "Democratic Socialist republic" when applied to the former East Germany.

recedite

View wrote: »

Hence, particularly as our own constitution also allows individuals to become Ministers without being directly elected by the people beforehand, the democratic decisions of the other member states as to whom forms their governments should be respected.

On re-checking the Constitution I see that up to two govt. ministers can be from the Seanad, which itself is supposedly composed of "technocrats." But in our situation the Taoiseach, Tanaiste, and Minister for Finance must be elected by the people to the Dail. So there is some difference, but not really a vast difference to the legalities at play in Italy and Greece where a technocrat can take over as the head honcho.

Irish Senators are technocrats because they are...... (according to the constitution );

CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND – BUNREACHT NA h&#201 wrote: »

persons having knowledge and practical experience of the following interests and services, namely:–
i National Language and Culture,Literature, Art, Education and such professional interests as may be defined by law for the purpose of this panel;
ii Agriculture and allied interests, and Fisheries;
iii Labour, whether organised or unorganised;
iv Industry and Commerce, including banking, finance,accountancy, engineering and architecture;
v Public Administration and social services, including voluntary social activities

Wibbs

recedite wrote: »

The democratically elected Parliament of Country B would have to ratify the treaty. That's representative democracy in action.

That's not the question/point I posed R.

'If country A holds a referendum over these important documents and country B doesn't, country B gives less input by the electorate on the course of the EU and that countries membership than Country A. Country B's citizens have quite simply less of a say.'

Or put it another way, how does the electorate have more of a say in governance in a representative democracy like the EU? Regardless of ones personal views of the advantages or not of such a system they quite simply don't. And we're not talking about 'mob rule' or any of that. We're talking about choice on issues that will affect people's lives and the country they live in for good or ill.

Plus as I pointed out in a country if the citizens take issue with the actions of a 'representative democracy' they are quite free to vote them out as indeed happened with FF after the last election and decisions they made that were seen by the electorate as bad, even disastrous(like easychair's example of the bank bailout). If they were sufficiently angered they could even vote in a government who was willing to overrule the last governments decisions, or partially overrule same. In a larger more centralised EU type 'state', this is far more difficult to do. They could vote in a government that decides to break from the EU entirely, but it's an either or offer after the ink has dried on previous treaties/decisions. Therefore the citizenry of the EU as an entity have less power.

While this is true, it is not necessarily a bad thing.
When the federal govt. sent National Guard troops into Alabama in the 1960's to break up segregated schooling they were overruling local democracy and the Governor of the State. When the mayor of Naas said last week he was no longer going to represent those of African origin, he was forced to stand down by FG national executive, not by his own electorate.
Sometimes a more centralised power can average out the local errors and come up with a common code that everyone can live by successfully; this is the function of a Federal Republic.

Oh certainly it's not necessarily a bad thing, it can certainly be a good thing as per those examples. However that level of federal power can also lead to bad things for local areas. Difficult enough in a fully federal union, with a relatively common culture, language, fiscal policy and economy like the US, even moreso in a more loose federation with very different cultures, languages fiscal policies and economies like the EU. At least in the US the citizenry has the power to hold officials who set economic policy accountable, much less the case in the EU.

Irish Senators are technocrats a waste of time, a political old boys club and a place where bad wigs go to retire on state monies. Delete as applicable

FYP :)

hatrickpatrick

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Does anyone in Ireland, at this time, really think that our Government does not need to balance our budget?

Does anyone in Ireland at this time really think we should increase our debt?

I don't think so, I think that everyone in Ireland would be pretty comfortable with the notion that we shouldn't run deficits in excess of 3% GDP and should not have debt in excess of 60% GDP. Since the current rules are being applied to us, and we are complying with them, we have nothing to fear. The fines and sanctions being sought can only be applied to jurisdictions acting in bad faith, we're acting in good faith.

So then, given that the rules are both sensible, and a variation of them is there and binding on us at the moment, the only reason for a no vote is to be contrarian.

No.
I agree with both of the above statements with regard to balancing the budget and running a deficit. But I still do not accept that any outside party should have the power to override the electorate of a democratic nation. If we want to give up the title "Republic of Ireland" and just call ourselves "Ireland" then so be it, but I for one would vigorously oppose this, just as I would vigorously oppose maintaining the title of "Republic" if we're not actually governed by the Irish citizenry and the Irish citizenry alone.

If we do join a United Stated of Europe, the title "Republic of Ireland" will look like a bad joke, a bit like how communist dictatorships always seem to name themselves with a prefix of "People's Democratic Republic of....."

beeftotheheels

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If we want to give up the title "Republic of Ireland" and just call ourselves "Ireland" then so be it, but I for one would vigorously oppose this

Shame you weren't around in Dev's time to give him the wisdom of your dissent

Bunreacht na h&#201 wrote: »

Article 4

The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland

Scofflaw

Wibbs wrote: »

Next while? Previously you suggested "that the state of affairs will continue for any length of time worth talking about". As I've pointed out for Italy it's penciled in for 2 years and with Greece Merkel has publicly stated "permanent supervision".

That's still nevertheless very much a temporary crisis measure, and doesn't even begin to address the implication of the claim that the countries are "less democratic than 20 years ago". It's like claiming that someone in bed with the flu is "less healthy than they were 20 years ago" - the implication is obviously that they've suffered over that time some sort of ongoing erosion of their health, not that they are currently sick.

Wibbs wrote: »

Missing, nay avoiding the point as per usual when it comes to the EU. I gave our dealings with EU treaties as an example. At no point have I claimed Irish democracy is overall the yardstick to judge against others. It would be "silly" to do so.

And yet you have repeatedly done so!

Wibbs wrote: »

OK let's simplify this even further and remove the country labels out of the equation. EU treaties ultimately affect all member states and their citizenry. They're very important documents mapping out the future of the European Union. While we're at it, just to ward off the "no/yes to ______ insert EU Treaty here" nitpicking, let's also remove the notion of whether this is a good or bad thing. If country A holds a referendum over these important documents and country B doesn't, country B gives less input by the electorate on the course of the EU and that countries membership than Country A. Country B's citizens have quite simply less of a say.

No, it gives them less of a direct say. You're simply begging the question of whether that is more useful to the people or not, as if there were no debate whatsoever over whether a direct public vote on a complex issue is better than a representative one. You treat this claim:

Wibbs wrote:

Or put it another way, how does the electorate have more of a say in governance in a representative democracy like the EU? Regardless of ones personal views of the advantages or not of such a system they quite simply don't. And we're not talking about 'mob rule' or any of that. We're talking about choice on issues that will affect people's lives and the country they live in for good or ill.

as if it were an inarguable truth. It's certainly not - the Lisbon referendums should have put paid for once and all any notion that complex issues are actually properly understood or debated in a plebiscite. And this thread is, let's face it, full of people who will vote No in a treaty vote for little reason other than that they currently feel "hard done by" by the EU, partly as a result of various myths and misconceptions!

So while in theory, given perfectly rational voters, a referendum may deliver the best results, in the real world the process isn't going to do anything of the kind, and holding it up as automatically better at reflecting the interests of the people is as much nonsense as claiming that the markets will automatically sort everything out to everyone's best advantage.

Wibbs wrote: »

Again I think we differ on the level of democracy and the distance from the citizenry of the EU involved. When the head of the CSB Jean Claude Trichet is keen for higher levels of centralised EU government http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2011/html/sp110404.en.html on the back of this crisis, more input by the citizens of the EU states would be nice, not less.

...because?

Wibbs wrote: »

Lets imagine the call for more centralised EU fiscal control is answered and again let us remove the debate over whether this is a good or bad thing. How much of an input will the EU citizenry have over such changes? Certainly one could argue that it's the same locally if a local government introduces a fiscal policy that the people take issue with. The major difference being that in the local environment the people can choose to vote out said government at the next general election and the new crowd can change said policy. That's a magnitude more difficult a thing to do in the context of the EU. If it came down to a new or rejigged treaty, history has shown us that only some jurisdictions will put that treaty to the local citizens to vote yay or nay. Now if the citizens of that jurisdiction take issue with that they can vote out that party next time around, but the treaty will have already been signed and there's little option of turning back. like I said before "what electoral power do they have today if they chose to voice it? They can vote for or against European parliamentary members, but the parliament is hardly bristling with power. They could vote against local governments to affect changes in the EU, but that's hard to do in a coordinated way EU wide. As more and more decisions are made in the EU that directly affect local policies this electoral power is less than it was over local policies 20 years ago."

I'd agree that if we hand over that particular piece of sovereignty, the current set of democratic controls at the EU level are probably inadequate. However, I don't see that as insoluble, although the obvious solution - increasing the powers of the directly elected and pan-European parliament - will be unpopular with everyone from eurosceptics to governments.

After all, the Irish government has things very nicely arranged in a way where the Budget isn't actually open to challenge because the whip system allows the government majority to rubber-stamp it - why would they want to see a system in which we have increased democratic control over it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wibbs

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's still nevertheless very much a temporary crisis measure, and doesn't even begin to address the implication of the claim that the countries are "less democratic than 20 years ago". It's like claiming that someone in bed with the flu is "less healthy than they were 20 years ago" - the implication is obviously that they've suffered over that time some sort of ongoing erosion of their health, not that they are currently sick.

That was one well two examples. I've also given the example of the disparity between different jurisdictions on how important and far reaching decisions with regard to the EU have been put to the citizenry over time, or not as is more often the case.

And yet you have repeatedly done so!

Nope, you've repeatedly honed in on it to divert the main question.

No, it gives them less of a direct say.

So it gives them less of a say? Thank you. It took enough posts to get to this point.

You're simply begging the question of whether that is more useful to the people or not, as if there were no debate whatsoever over whether a direct public vote on a complex issue is better than a representative one.

OK then.

You treat this claim:

as if it were an inarguable truth.

Nope sorry wrong again. You'll note I say "Regardless of ones personal views of the advantages or not of such a system"

It's certainly not - the Lisbon referendums should have put paid for once and all any notion that complex issues are actually properly understood or debated in a plebiscite. And this thread is, let's face it, full of people who will vote No in a treaty vote for little reason other than that they currently feel "hard done by" by the EU, partly as a result of various myths and misconceptions!

For a start one man's myths and misconceptions are anothers truths or half truths. Who judges this? Indirect and less accountable people higher up? People whose interest may lie with garnering more judgement over the citizenry down the line?

So while in theory, given perfectly rational voters, a referendum may deliver the best results,

So long as they vote the "right" way it seems. Locally speaking? Divorce took it's time being passed in this country. I didn't like it personally, but that was the democratic vote of the citizenry at the time. I don't like the lack of pro choice for women in this country, but again that's the democratic vote of the citizenry at this moment(or it was when last checked). Let's look locally again with the recent referendums on judges pay and increased power for the government in legal matters. Complex enough issues, and issues the representative government wanted passed. It was put to the people and the people said no thanks. If it had been left to the representative government they would have passed. Against the wishes of the electorate and in the case of more government power arguably a dangerous thin end of the wedge into the future. Now before you hop like an excited bunny on the "oh again he's saying Irish democracy is overall yardstick to judge", I'm not. It's an example. I'm quite sure similar examples are to be found in every EU jurisdiction.

in the real world the process isn't going to do anything of the kind, and holding it up as automatically better at reflecting the interests of the people is as much nonsense as claiming that the markets will automatically sort everything out to everyone's best advantage.

Eroding the say of the citizenry is potentially dangerous. Doubly so the more federal any pan nation alliance becomes with it's myriad differences compared to a single state.

...because?

Accountability.

I'd agree that if we hand over that particular piece of sovereignty, the current set of democratic controls at the EU level are probably inadequate.

Indeed so and it can be argued well enough that a fair few at the core of the EU would like to make these changes. The head of the ECB among them.

However, I don't see that as insoluble, although the obvious solution - increasing the powers of the directly elected and pan-European parliament - will be unpopular with everyone from eurosceptics to governments.

Indeed it would and so if it does happen and it's more possible than not at the moment, we would be living in an EU with a inadequate, less accountable eroded democracy. One that has evolved over time to get to such a potential situation. EDIT personally I'd like to see "increasing the powers of the directly elected and pan-European parliament" compared to the setup of today.

After all, the Irish government has things very nicely arranged in a way where the Budget isn't actually open to challenge because the whip system allows the government majority to rubber-stamp it - why would they want to see a system in which we have increased democratic control over it?

As I pointed out we do have democratic control. It may take time, but we can vote them out en masse next time out. How many seats have FF retained now? In a similar scenario in the EU as it stands and has evolved that would be significantly less possible, if possible at all.

easychair

Wibbs wrote: »

As I pointed out we do have democratic control. It may take time, but we can vote them out en masse next time out. How many seats have FF retained now? In a similar scenario in the EU as it stands and has evolved that would be significantly less possible, if possible at all.

Ultimately, it's true there is accountability, eventually.

As we saw with the last FF government, the electorate were unable to stop them committing the Irish people to tens and tens, perhaps even hundreds, of billions of increased debt. They were not acting as representatives of the Irish electorate, but seem to have been acting as the representatives of others outside the Irish state. Can anyone claim that was democracy? Can anyone even pretend those were the actions of a government acting on behalf of the people who elected them to represent them?

FreudianSlippers

Is the EU failing? I think it has been a relatively large success. I would even suggest that if the Eurozone failed; the EU could survive.

amacca

easychair wrote: »

As we saw with the last FF government, the electorate were unable to stop them committing the Irish people to tens and tens, perhaps even hundreds, of billions of increased debt. They were not acting as representatives of the Irish electorate, but seem to have been acting as the representatives of others outside the Irish state. Can anyone claim that was democracy? Can anyone even pretend those were the actions of a government acting on behalf of the people who elected them to represent them?

which to me at least is pretty much why they shouldn't be allowed to become even more influenced by those "outside" the Irish state

Wibbs

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Is the EU failing? I think it has been a relatively large success. I would even suggest that if the Eurozone failed; the EU could survive.

+1. Through sickness or in health for richer or poorer we're all in this together pretty much. A good thing as far as I'm concerned anyway. It's just some of the running of it worries me.

beeftotheheels

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Is the EU failing? I think it has been a relatively large success. I would even suggest that if the Eurozone failed; the EU could survive.

I'm getting less and less sure of this you know. If you'd asked a month ago whether the eurozone would fail I'd have laughed but I think I'm now in the "more likely than not" camp.

The next question though is why could the Eurozone fail? The answer is that national self interests are being allowed, both through the Council and through rules hard baked into the treaties, to destabilize the whole.

So, either we redraft the treaties to disempower the council (and empower an elected Commission and/ or the parliament) and release the ECB, a treaty change which, the Irish people will probably reject out of hand even if Angela could be persuaded to propose the treaty changes actually required rather than those that play to her electorate, or we accept the current status quo where blinkered national self interests are allowed to run the show.

The Irish lesson is that we probably won't vote to improve it, so absent our leaving, it cannot be improved, and it is pretty f***ed up right now. Member States no longer trust each other, its now a bit like a whole EU made up of little Britains.

I think one UK is really all a functioning EU can deal with.

I just typed this as a very heavy-hearted Europhile.

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I'm getting less and less sure of this you know. If you'd asked a month ago whether the eurozone would fail I'd have laughed but I think I'm now in the "more likely than not" camp.

The next question though is why could the Eurozone fail? The answer is that national self interests are being allowed, both through the Council and through rules hard baked into the treaties, to destabilize the whole.

So, either we redraft the treaties to disempower the council (and empower an elected Commission and/ or the parliament) and release the ECB, a treaty change which, the Irish people will probably reject out of hand even if Angela could be persuaded to propose the treaty changes actually required rather than those that play to her electorate, or we accept the current status quo where blinkered national self interests are allowed to run the show.

The Irish lesson is that we probably won't vote to improve it, so absent our leaving, it cannot be improved, and it is pretty f***ed up right now. Member States no longer trust each other, its now a bit like a whole EU made up of little Britains.

I think one UK is really all a functioning EU can deal with.

I just typed this as a very heavy-hearted Europhile.

Agreed to some extent, in respect of the euro itself, but I think that ignores the vast amount of ongoing cooperation taking place through the EU. In a lot of senses, the euro is only the tip of the iceberg - a ten-year old project which was deeply and necessarily flawed from the start.

It's possible for the EU to break apart on the nationalist populism being displayed by both Merkel and Sarkozy, but I'd be surprised if the poor quality of two national leaders (even those of France and Germany) can destroy something quite as deeply embedded in the fabric of modern European life - and the EU survived de Gaulle. And if it does break apart, the immediate response will be to rebuild it, because despite the clamour of the europhobes, Europe cannot do without it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

beeftotheheels

Scofflaw wrote: »

Agreed to some extent, in respect of the euro itself, but I think that ignores the vast amount of ongoing cooperation taking place through the EU. In a lot of senses, the euro is only the tip of the iceberg - a ten-year old project which was deeply and necessarily flawed from the start.

It's possible for the EU to break apart on the nationalist populism being displayed by both Merkel and Sarkozy, but I'd be surprised if the poor quality of two national leaders (even those of France and Germany) can destroy something quite as deeply embedded in the fabric of modern European life. And if it does, the immediate response will be to rebuild it, because despite the clamour of the europhobes, Europe cannot do without it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Really pessimistic about it this evening, suspect it was Munchau's piece in the FT saying that the Eurozone has 10 days to save itself and wondering if it can last ten days, and even if it can knowing that there is no chance that the next summit will produce anything other than too little, too late. Merkel's comments regarding the Commission's proposals on "stability bonds" last week really didn't help, such rejection of them means there is no chance she can table them by the 9th.

My reading is that the Union which originated as a steel and coal union and later morphed into an economic community before becoming a union, is that the economic tail will very much wag the greater European dog.

A European project may be rebuilt, but the economic catastrophe which will result from the failure of the eurozone will cause borders to raise, there'll be no appetite for anything other than national protectionism until we've had enough of that (again) to remember why the nations of Europe turned their backs on it to begin with.

PS not just Merkozy http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1adc7ab0-191e-11e1-92d8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1ewVfsIqO

I think I'm just about viewing EU survival as more likely than not, but I'm wondering if what survives will be worth having, since the powers to rebuild will remain with the Member States who will not exercise those powers wisely any time soon.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

beeftotheheels

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But hold on a second. Italy has been in breach of the SGP since the get go over their debt (although not their deficits) while Spain never breached it until the global melt down. Yet the SGP is not worth the paper it is written on because it requires a qualified majority at council to invoke it, and Germany and france found it burdensome (given they were running deficits).

So while the PIIGS have some blame here, the rules were never applied because of the core. Yet the core takes no responsibility for this. Hell a treaty change is arguably not required if the core would implement constitutional "EU brakes" kinda like their "debt brake" mantra, which obliged them to not interfere with the proper functioning of the Articles underpinning the SGP.

Had Germany and France complied with the SGP do you really think that Ireland and Spain's economies would have overheated?

Had Germany and France not rendered the SGP toothless then Italy might have continued with the work she was doing on reducing her debts.

The issue is not economic. It is political and as such is hard wired into the treaties leaving way too much to be decided at an intergovernmental level which obviously the people of Ireland would cheer at because it retains our CT veto, while missing the point that it gave the Germans and French an SGU veto.

ps Do you really believe that Connecticut and Louisiana really share a "common economic culture"?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

beeftotheheels

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

bl**dy economists looking at one side of the equation only!;)

Had France and Germany not run deficits, had they kept their houses in order would the ECB have had to keep rates so low?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Lets leave the country which has just arrested the head of their statistics agency for reporting statistics in an unpatriotic manner out of this.

Italy to Germany, regional variations. In fact, Northern Italy to Germany is parity, Southern Italy to Northern Italy as much of a regional variation as Louisiana to Connecticut.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

beeftotheheels

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"L'[Europa] è fatta. Restano da fare gli [europei]" was the original thought process behind the EU and thus the eurozone.

The problem is that the financial crisis has somewhat upset the apple cart because it is clear that at this stage we don't have Europeans yet we do have a monetary Union (for the time being).

Perhaps the benefit of hindsight will make us try harder next time around and actually appreciate the benefits to a pan European economy.

maninasia

Tora Bora wrote: »

I agree 101% with you.

I have always been, 101% pro the EU project, as I always, believed Ireland would be best served by being part of the centre, as opposed to a rocky outcrop looking in.
I voted yes to Lisbons 1 and 2.

BUT .... about 5 minutes after I came out of the ballot box for the second referendum, I felt I had mad a mistake. I really felt, I should have voted no, not because I was not in favour of the principle behind the idea, BUT, because I felt I had let democracy down, by not accepting the majority vote in the first referendum.

I am now of the opinion, that I will never again vote for more integration in any shape or form.

I do not want to be a door mat for Sarkozy and Merkel.

Then it's simple don't take the money. Live within your means. If you are living within your means ask your fellow citizens to live within their means.
It's a choice, the electorate has CHOSEN to take the bailout and foreign funds rather than bankrupt at this time. That's what it boils down to in the end.

Being a door mat? Well if the ECB didn't provide bailout money what would happen. The Irish government had a choice not to bailout our own banks with money they didn't have. The Irish people weren't exactly screaming from the rooftops for the two years it took for the ramifications of this decision to work it's way into a bailout from the EU.

The Irish citizens in general wanted the money more than sovereignity or hard times. The fact is integration IS neccessary if you want to have a common financial policy, otherwise Ireland needs to leave the Euro and also risk all the benefits it gets from European access and integration.

maninasia

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I'm getting less and less sure of this you know. If you'd asked a month ago whether the eurozone would fail I'd have laughed but I think I'm now in the "more likely than not" camp.

The next question though is why could the Eurozone fail? The answer is that national self interests are being allowed, both through the Council and through rules hard baked into the treaties, to destabilize the whole.

So, either we redraft the treaties to disempower the council (and empower an elected Commission and/ or the parliament) and release the ECB, a treaty change which, the Irish people will probably reject out of hand even if Angela could be persuaded to propose the treaty changes actually required rather than those that play to her electorate, or we accept the current status quo where blinkered national self interests are allowed to run the show.

The Irish lesson is that we probably won't vote to improve it, so absent our leaving, it cannot be improved, and it is pretty f***ed up right now. Member States no longer trust each other, its now a bit like a whole EU made up of little Britains.

I think one UK is really all a functioning EU can deal with.

I just typed this as a very heavy-hearted Europhile.

I don't see the EU failing but I certainly see the end of the Eurozone as we know it with very possibly two Eurozone currencies being created. Through this tough process the EU will emerge a more stable and integrated community.

easychair

maninasia wrote: »

I don't see the EU failing but I certainly see the end of the Eurozone as we know it with very possibly two Eurozone currencies being created. Through this tough process the EU will emerge a more stable and integrated community.

How do you know? The Euro, an the EU, are in the mess they are in precisely because its leaders just stuck their fingers in their ears and hoped for the best.

Despite warnings that the Euro would end up in a mess eventually due to structural problems, they just stuck their fingers in their ears, ignored the warnings, and hoped that the EU, like the tower of Babel, was too big to fail.

What evidence leads you to thing the EU will emerge as a more stable and integrated community?

maninasia

Good question. There have been few cases in modern history where large federal type entities which have generally been supported and given stability to the population have failed. Canada, the US, Australia, India...have all prospered even though there have been civil wars and crises along the way.

The USSR is the best modern example of a 'federal' union that has failed that I can think of but it's founding was not the choice of most of the citizens in it.

The Eurozone could not fit in the current political set-up of the EU (as other posters have mentioned above) so either the Eurozone changes or the political set-up changes, that SHOULD create a more stable EU after going through this process.