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

easychair

maninasia wrote: »

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.

It is quite likely a majority of the citizens of the EU would vote against the EU in its current form. Unfortunately, the EU is against democracy and would not countenance a vote for fear of what it might tell them.

The USSR had to resort to tanks, guns, barbed wire, dogs, torture and imprisonment of many of its opponents, and still the will of the people won in the end.

Many ordinary citizens in the EU worry about the direction of the EU, and worry about the lack of democratic accountability.

More worrying still are those who claim the EU is democratic, and who claim that the ordinary people in the EU are happy about the EU and claim that the EU has a democratic mandate. (Which is not unreminiscent of the USSR who propagandised with pictures of happy workers smiling as they toiled in the fields bringing in the bumber harvests).

I have a belief that democratic accountability will eventually prevail across the EU, but not before the EU twists and turns and fights tooth and nail against any reforms which might mean it, at last, becomes more democratic.

We have seen, to our detriment, how lack of democracy in Ireland and elsewhere can lead to government getting out of control, and we have to learn from that lessons for the whole EU.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Something that highlights for me the problem with leaving fiscal discipline to the markets - as long as you reckon you can base a position on Ireland's positives but be able to get out in time to avoid the negatives, then you don't much care whether the positives are produced by racking up long-term negatives. Money has no loyalty.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think one can easily claim that - there are very large variations between states which I don't think you can really gloss over with "common business culture": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45174438/ns/us_news/t/amid-deficit-gloom-some-states-enjoy-surpluses/#.TtNcJlaBrlE

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

It is quite likely a majority of the citizens of the EU would vote against the EU in its current form. Unfortunately, the EU is against democracy and would not countenance a vote for fear of what it might tell them.

The USSR had to resort to tanks, guns, barbed wire, dogs, torture and imprisonment of many of its opponents, and still the will of the people won in the end.

Many ordinary citizens in the EU worry about the direction of the EU, and worry about the lack of democratic accountability.

More worrying still are those who claim the EU is democratic, and who claim that the ordinary people in the EU are happy about the EU and claim that the EU has a democratic mandate. (Which is not unreminiscent of the USSR who propagandised with pictures of happy workers smiling as they toiled in the fields bringing in the bumber harvests).

I have a belief that democratic accountability will eventually prevail across the EU, but not before the EU twists and turns and fights tooth and nail against any reforms which might mean it, at last, becomes more democratic.

We have seen, to our detriment, how lack of democracy in Ireland and elsewhere can lead to government getting out of control, and we have to learn from that lessons for the whole EU.

If what you meant was that the Member States governments tend to resist being subjected to additional European-level democratic control over and above their national systems of democratic control, I would agree with you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wibbs

easychair wrote: »

It is quite likely a majority of the citizens of the EU would vote against the EU in its current form. Unfortunately, the EU is against democracy and would not countenance a vote for fear of what it might tell them.

I dunno easychair. OK this would be my very broad take. For me the problem is not that the EU is undemocratic in intention(and certainly a world away from the USSR). Where it is undemocratic it's because of the current structures born out of it's history. It didn't start off as a "united states of Europe". People didn't want that, governments didn't want that so brakes and policies were built around that. This led to the EU being a bureaucratic led model, rather than a governmental led model from the get go. Even to voters. Very very few people give a damn or even know who their MEP's are. Its seen as a sideshow, even a retirement home and/or easy job for politicians. Not just in Ireland. I've personally noted similar with Spaniards, Italians, Dutch, Greeks, French. Though Germans I've met seem to have more knowledge and interest.

The bureaucratic model isn't so much against democracy, it just sees it as a hindrance if it notices it at all. To change all this of course we would have to do what Scofflaw suggested earlier; increase the power of the EU parliament and take it away from the local state ones. Something people and politicians are largely against. So IMH we're kinda left with an imperfect union aiming to be united and democratic, but without the built in mechanisms to be able to be that.

Wibbs

Scofflaw wrote: »

If what you meant was that the Member States governments tend to resist being subjected to additional European-level democratic control over and above their national systems of democratic control, I would agree with you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

TBH Scoffy, I'd also tend to resist that under the current setup of the EU, because I'd not be at all convinced of the influence of the European electorate. However if it was less a bureaucracy and more an actual government I wouldn't be.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

If what you meant was that the Member States governments tend to resist being subjected to additional European-level democratic control over and above their national systems of democratic control, I would agree with you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What I was talking about was democracy as in one man one vote, and if the individuals of the EU were asked, as opposed to the individual governments of the EU.

I didn’t notice, for example, the Irish government or any other individual government, resisting the Lisbon Treaty.

Wibbs wrote: »

the EU … didn't start off as a "united states of Europe". People didn't want that, governments didn't want that so brakes and policies were built around that.

I remember as a child in an irish Primary school, just before Ireland voted to join the EEC, being taught that the EEC was for “economic and political union”.

Wibbs wrote: »

I Where it is undemocratic it's because of the current structures born out of its history.

If that is the case, what is curious is why there appears to be no will to change and become more democratic.

Wibbs wrote: »

The bureaucratic model isn't so much against democracy, it just sees it as a hindrance if it notices it at all. To change all this of course we would have to do what Scofflaw suggested earlier; increase the power of the EU parliament and take it away from the local state ones. Something people and politicians are largely against. So IMH we're kinda left with an imperfect union aiming to be united and democratic, but without the built in mechanisms to be able to be that.

The scandal of course is that the individual democracies have enabled and allowed this to happen.

Of course, Scofflaw appears here to be a great cheerleader for the EU, and I hope he doesn’t mind me observing, as I have before, that he sometimes seems to speak on their behalf in these threads. So to suggest that the only way to make the institutions of the EU more accountable is by taking powers away from the member states is not completely unexpected, as that is the agenda of the EU.

However, it is far from sure that is what would be accepted by the people of the EU, and suspect the EU themselves, and probably Scofflaw, would resist any arguments that the people should be asked, democratically, for their opinion, for fear of what they might decide.

The concern is that, as the EU progresses, it gets further and further away from the people it purports to govern (note: not represent), and that can’t auger well for a happy, peaceful future, if the lessons of history have been learned.

Scofflaw

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH Scoffy, I'd also tend to resist that under the current setup of the EU, because I'd not be at all convinced of the influence of the European electorate. However if it was less a bureaucracy and more an actual government I wouldn't be.

Either way, though, one is talking about the influence of the European electorate. At one end, you have a system where the national governments that constitute the Council are subject only to their national electorates/parliaments when they make decisions in Europe - at the other end, you have a system whereby those decisions are subject to a European Parliament.

The disadvantages of the former are generally that the joint decision-making in the Council and the deficiencies of national reporting makes it relatively easy for national governments to smokescreen what they're doing in Europe - a good example is Fianna Fáil blaming "the EU" for the decision to apply water charges to schools, when they were offered an exemption for schools and refused it. In Ireland's specific case it's also that we have very very weak systems for holding our government accountable over any of their actions, and a highly parochial press.

A European system of democratic oversight, therefore - in the sense of a parliament that votes freely on whether the proposed legislation is "good for Europe" or "good for my country" or "good for my ideology" - is absolutely necessary. But it can't be so powerful as to overturn the mandates held by the national governments that constitute the Council, so the result is a balancing act.

Looking at the treaties, you can see that upgrades of the oversight functions of the Parliament have tended to happen every second treaty - Lisbon contained a lot of parliamentary upgrades, whereas Nice didn't. So the national governments, while they tend to resist upgrading the Parliament to give it more power in opposition to them, don't resist it in any absolute way.

Also, of course, it takes time for the Parliament to grow into its new role, and for the European electorate in turn to understand that new role - and, to my mind, one of the principal lags is actually in the electorate realising that the Parliament is now a long way from being the talking shop it originally was. Appreciation of that varies from place to place - it's a lot stronger in rural Ireland than in Dublin, for example.

On top of all of that, what's happening at the moment is first and foremost intergovernmental action affecting the EU - or, rather, the eurozone - and being cast lazily as "the EU". We don't obviously don't have much control of Germany when Germany is acting primarily as a nation-state, and that's the situation at the moment, because what's happening is a combination of intergovernmental funding and emergency treaty negotiation.

What amazes me, I have to say, is the idea that because Germany is acting more unilaterally, the correct response for Ireland is to also act more unilaterally. On a unilateral head to head basis with Germany, our position doesn't even really register - that's always been the advantage of the EU from our perspective, although it seems that the habit of equality through the EU's mechanisms is now so ingrained in Irish thinking that we're having difficulty adjusting back to the intergovernmental disparity between our weights (luckily, the same is true in Germany). Should the EU disappear, we'll find that the current apparently large imbalances in Europe don't represent anything near the real position.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

easychair wrote:

What I was talking about was democracy as in one man one vote, and if the individuals of the EU were asked, as opposed to the individual governments of the EU.

I know - that's why I couched my response as "if you were...I would".

easychair wrote:

Of course, Scofflaw appears here to be a great cheerleader for the EU, and I hope he doesn’t mind me observing, as I have before, that he sometimes seems to speak on their behalf in these threads.

I don't mind you saying it, as long as you appreciate that it's entirely wrong! I don't represent the EU in any sense, and don't refer to them for anything outside factual issues when formulating an opinion. Also, your ascription of positions to me is inaccurate, as ever.

My thinking is based on constitutional approaches to democratic governance, and the logic is relatively clear once you understand how democracies actually function in a constitutional and legal way where the simplistic and naive conception that " democracy = one man one vote on everything" breaks down. There's a reason there's no state run on such lines, and it's not the result of conspiracy. As I said earlier, the idea that you can just use a plebiscite for everything is fundamentally just another ideological position which ignores reality wherever it's inconvenient - and the claim that anyone who disagrees with that ideology is "undemocratic" is the standard ideologue's attack technique. Reality is nuanced and complex, ideologies aren't, which is why they should never be applied undiluted, as you appear to prefer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Aidan1

suspect the EU themselves

Just to reinforce the point - who are the 'EU' in this case? Is it the Commission? (A group of Civil Servants, smaller than our own limited coterie?), the Parliament (a representative group with powers that are still primarily of the oversight variety), or the Council? (an assembly/group made up of the Ministers of all Member States across their relative areas). The only one of these that isn't elected (the Commission) is also the one that doesn't have any voting power when it comes to making decisions.

Frankly, casting the 'EU' as some scheming Dr Evil type villain completely misses the point, and the complexity of the institutions involved, and is essentially a highly reductionist approach to a systemic issue. The fundamental problem in this case is that, because the EU only works on the basis of consensus between democratically elected Govts, a crisis like this one is practically impossible to tackle when Govts fundamentally disagree. Because of the nature of the disagreement, the Germans and the French (and the ECB) have effectively gone into conclave on occasions because of this, sidelining the Commission, the Council and the Parliament, and they still haven't resolved the problem.

Then again, the historical record would suggest that a solution to a problem this difficult will only be found when everyone is looking at the bottom of an empty glass in the last chance saloon. Ultimately Member States will find a way of dealing with the moral hazard issues to the satisfaction of the Bundesbank (sorry, ECB), and the ECB will crank up the presses. It'll mean that the ultimate monetary cost will be higher, and it might even work - but each Member State will have a choice.

Bite the bullet, accept the oversight, and sign on to whatever is agreed. Or walk away from the Euro, and step outside into the cold. Not a pleasant choice, but that's democracy in action.

easychair

easychair wrote: »

Of course, Scofflaw appears here to be a great cheerleader for the EU, and I hope he doesn’t mind me observing, as I have before, that he sometimes seems to speak on their behalf in these threads. .

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't mind you saying it, as long as you appreciate that it's entirely wrong! I don't represent the EU in any sense, and don't refer to them for anything outside factual issues when formulating an opinion. Also, your ascription of positions to me is inaccurate, as ever.

I didn't say you represented the EU, and said you appear as a cheerleader for the EU. If you think it is wrong of others to consider you appear as a cheerleader for the EU, then it's not really possible to control the opinions other get from what we write.

Scofflaw wrote: »

My thinking is based on constitutional approaches to democratic governance, and the logic is relatively clear once you understand how democracies actually function in a constitutional and legal way where the simplistic and naive conception that " democracy = one man one vote on everything" breaks down. There's a reason there's no state run on such lines, and it's not the result of conspiracy. As I said earlier, the idea that you can just use a plebiscite for everything is fundamentally just another ideological position which ignores reality wherever it's inconvenient - and the claim that anyone who disagrees with that ideology is "undemocratic" is the standard ideologue's attack technique. Reality is nuanced and complex, ideologies aren't, which is why they should never be applied undiluted, as you appear to prefer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That just seems to be a lot of words confirming what I said that you are opposed to allowing the actual people of Europe vote. (Personally, I think it a shame that you have to call me names and try to belittle the argument with such rhetoric as “the standard ideologue's attack technique”, and you'll note I won't respond in kind by calling your response “the blinkered Europhiles standard distraction from the argument technique”).


While no one is suggesting that the people of Europe vote on every issue, to suggest, as you seem to, that they also be denied a vote on important issues, such as giving up sovereignty, is not shared with many of the people across the EU. Of course, many who have a desire to want to see the EU amass more and more power know full well that it's not what the actual people of Europe want, so they have to develop arguments against democracy, and never allow it. The great thing is that more and more European people are waking up to these tactics designed to deny them the vote, and as the old USSR, and more recently the people in what has become known as the Arab Spring, found, there is nothing so powerful as the will of the people.

Simtech

easychair wrote: »

(Personally, I think it a shame that you have to call me names and try to belittle the argument with such rhetoric as “the standard ideologue's attack technique”, and you'll note I won't respond in kind by calling your response “the blinkered Europhiles standard distraction from the argument technique”).

You just did!

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

I didn't say you represented the EU, and said you appear as a cheerleader for the EU. If you think it is wrong of others to consider you appear as a cheerleader for the EU, then it's not really possible to control the opinions other get from what we write.

I would have said it was relatively obvious, given my phrasing, that my response was to this bit:

I hope he doesn’t mind me observing, as I have before, that he sometimes seems to speak on their behalf in these threads

But we evidently have different ideas of "obvious".

easychair wrote: »

That just seems to be a lot of words confirming what I said that you are opposed to allowing the actual people of Europe vote. (Personally, I think it a shame that you have to call me names and try to belittle the argument with such rhetoric as “the standard ideologue's attack technique”, and you'll note I won't respond in kind by calling your response “the blinkered Europhiles standard distraction from the argument technique”).


While no one is suggesting that the people of Europe vote on every issue, to suggest, as you seem to, that they also be denied a vote on important issues, such as giving up sovereignty, is not shared with many of the people across the EU. Of course, many who have a desire to want to see the EU amass more and more power know full well that it's not what the actual people of Europe want, so they have to develop arguments against democracy, and never allow it. The great thing is that more and more European people are waking up to these tactics designed to deny them the vote, and as the old USSR, and more recently the people in what has become known as the Arab Spring, found, there is nothing so powerful as the will of the people.

Um, yeah, well, whatever. Not much point in my responding with another "lot of words" really, is there? I might as well just say:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, valetudo verto cui, ut proprius dignissim interdico ut os meus proprius. Adipiscing iustum regula, defui demoveo gilvus genitus. Nutus jus humo nisl jumentum rusticus quidne consequat in valetudo patria ut suscipit odio rusticus.

Conventio singularis volutpat vel praemitto molior interdico, regula hendrerit lobortis quidne decet.

Faster and less effort for me, and works out the same for you. Do let me know if you need more words there!

amused,
Scofflaw

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would have said it was relatively obvious, given my phrasing, that my response was to this bit:



But we evidently have different ideas of "obvious".

I have to point out that I did not accuse you of anything, and only stated what is pretty obvous insofar as you do often come over as a cheerleader for the EU. Are you really saying that you don't think you come over to many as a cheerleader for the EU?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Um, yeah, well, whatever. Not much point in my responding with another "lot of words" really, is there? I might as well just say:



Faster and less effort for me, and works out the same for you. Do let me know if you need more words there!

amused,
Scofflaw

It's up to you whether you wish to respond or not. Of course, by answering in this passive aggressive way, that enables you to neatly avoid the points in my last post. Which may be just as well as it's hard to argue that people in every country across Europe should be denied an opportunity to vote on whether or not they should give up sovereignty, in perpetuity, binding all future generations and with no recourse, to the EU.

FreudianSlippers

I'd hardly call what Scofflaw writes about the EU as being a "cheerleader" for it. Pointing out there are certain positive facts about an institution (etc) is not cheerleading, it's realism.

easychair

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'd hardly call what Scofflaw writes about the EU as being a "cheerleader" for it. Pointing out there are certain positive facts about an institution (etc) is not cheerleading, it's realism.

Thats for each of us to decide for ourselves, i guess. For me, cheerleading means generally only looking at one side of the story and only promoting one side of the coin. Don't get me wrong, I think its a perfectly respectable position and viewpoint to hold, but it does come over sometimes as cheerleading.

The news today from Eueope about the Euro is getting blacker and blacker. Klaus Regling, head of the eurozone rescue fund EFSF says market conditions have hobbled the 'big bazooka' deal. The hope was to leverage the depleted fund up four or five times to around €1,000bn before firing it into Club Med's black hole of debt, plugging the crisis. But as bank lending dries up and the debt crisis escalates that's no longer possible.

Growth in all teh economies, even the UK and Germany, is predicted to topple into recession in 2012, and the outlook is precarious. Cash has been leaving Greece, reportedly for Scandanavis Countries, in truck loads, and the Euro looks more and more unsteady.

The one thing all the Sarkozys and Merkels and Draghis and Barrosos cannot contemplate is the one thing most conspicuously obvious to those outside the euro. It does not work, and the more you try to make it work the worse it gets.

I wonder if the EU want us all to give up sovereignty to help avert the crises, do we get a guarantee that if they don't succeed, ( which looks increasingly likely), can we have our sovereignty bacK?

FreudianSlippers

easychair wrote: »

Thats for each of us to decide for ourselves, i guess. For me, cheerleading means generally only looking at one side of the story and only promoting one side of the coin. Don't get me wrong, I think its a perfectly respectable position and viewpoint to hold, but it does come over sometimes as cheerleading.

I just suppose on the flip-side would you call what you do anti-EU cheerleading? Your point could likely easily be made against you.

Seems rather an ad hominem stance IMO.

View

easychair wrote: »

What I was talking about was democracy as in one man one vote, and if the individuals of the EU were asked, as opposed to the individual governments of the EU.

This "One man one vote" - would that be what we get to exercise at European and General elections? Or do you mean something else by "One man one vote" to what people usually understand it to mean?

easychair wrote: »

I didn’t notice, for example, the Irish government or any other individual government, resisting the Lisbon Treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty was what all the governments agreed to after extensive negotiations. Why would you expect one of them to oppose what they had just agreed to at the end of their negotiations?

Would you expect Fine Gael, for instance, to oppose (the implementation of) the programme for government that Fine Gael & Labour agreed to when forming the current coalition government after it was negotiated?

easychair wrote: »

If that is the case, what is curious is why there appears to be no will to change and become more democratic.

It is particularly "curious" as the will of the member states of the EU, in the Lisbon Treaty, did make the EU more democratic by massively upgrading the role of the European Parliament.

You do realise that "the concerned democrats" who opposed Lisbon, opposed increasing the democratic powers of the democratically elected (European) Parliament, don't you?

easychair

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I just suppose on the flip-side would you call what you do anti-EU cheerleading? Your point could likely easily be made against you.

Seems rather an ad hominem stance IMO.

Thats for others to decide. Certainly, I am not uncritical of the EU, but then I can 't understand those who are uncritical of any institution.

If only more were critical, for example, of the Catholic Church in ireland in the 20th Century, then perhaps much of the awful influence of that institution might have been avoided. Criticism is good, and valuable.

View

easychair wrote: »

Criticism is good, and valuable.

Constructive criticism can certainly be good and valuable, that is true.

Destructive criticism - particularly that based on misinformation or active misrepresentation - is neither good nor valuable but then it rarely is intended to be.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

Constructive criticism can certainly be good and valuable, that is true.

Destructive criticism - particularly that based on misinformation or active misrepresentation - is neither good nor valuable but then it rarely is intended to be.

Obviously, I'd regard myself as constructively critical of the EU, because I believe it to be a good and useful thing. That doesn't mean it does everything right by a very long chalk indeed - the CFP is a particular bugbear - but in and of itself, yes, I think it's one of the best things to happen to Europe (not a very high bar) and indeed Ireland. It could be better, but some of that "better" would involve more integration (some would involve less), and for some reason I just can't fathom anything involving more integration somehow doesn't count as valid criticism in some people's eyes.

I'm struggling to think of an occasion in which the criticism levelled at the EU by those who are likely to describe themselves as "eurocritical" was that it wasn't integrated enough. And unless one regards integration - and therefore the EU - as a bad thing in itself, I can't see how a process of real criticism can never conclude that the EU is insufficiently integrated. And, in turn, if one regards integration as a bad thing in itself, I don't see how one can honestly be claiming to be offering objective criticism as opposed to an attack couched as objective criticism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

beeftotheheels wrote: »

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.

The internet is awash with this stuff at the moment. Full on rants about voting No to a new treaty without the slightest idea of what might be in it. It's like you took a toy off a child.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Obviously, I'd regard myself as constructively critical of the EU, because I believe it to be a good and useful thing. That doesn't mean it does everything right by a very long chalk indeed - the CFP is a particular bugbear - but in and of itself, yes, I think it's one of the best things to happen to Europe (not a very high bar) and indeed Ireland. It could be better, but some of that "better" would involve more integration (some would involve less), and for some reason I just can't fathom anything involving more integration somehow doesn't count as valid criticism in some people's eyes.

I'm struggling to think of an occasion in which the criticism levelled at the EU by those who are likely to describe themselves as "eurocritical" was that it wasn't integrated enough. And unless one regards integration - and therefore the EU - as a bad thing in itself, I can't see how a process of real criticism can never conclude that the EU is insufficiently integrated. And, in turn, if one regards integration as a bad thing in itself, I don't see how one can honestly be claiming to be offering objective criticism as opposed to an attack couched as objective criticism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well put. I have repeatedly found myself defending the EU not because it's perfect but for...
1. The people complaining have no idea how the EU actually works
2. They believe the Lisbon treaty caused our mess (and given it was brought into law in Dec 2009 that is a physical impossibility).
3. They keep going on about 'yes for jobs'. (When clearly exports are booming and they have very bad memoires of the lying that caused the first no vote).
4. A fantasy understanding of what sovereignty is.
5. Rabid nationalists who will promote their version of 'utopia' even if we all have to suffer in practice.
6. General finger point not based in any fact.

I'm sure I could come up with a few more.

mistermouse

But I am not sure there is a real sense of unity within the EU. Germany and France are stalling on any major fixes or decisions purely for domestic reasons and will be quite happy to let the PIIGS sink if it means they survive easier as far as I can see. They seem to be a major part of the instability

Also, I hear people defending the EU as giving us xbillions, they are not giving us anything, they are lending us money, previously at punitive rates and wit the expectation and oversight that we will pay it back at the risk of crashing our economy.

Its also most likely that they are lending us the money to shore up their banks lending to us, no matter how it is or has been spent in the past.

There certainly is to me a sense of European players looking after themselves at all costs first. Not a sense of a common union. I did not think the idea of Greece holding a referendum was good for stability but it sure was obvious what German and French leaders though of anyone else playing to their electorate, percisely what they are doing themselves daily

easychair

According to the Economist (and others), even as the euro zone hurtles towards a crash, most people are assuming that, in the end, European leaders will do whatever it takes to save the single currency. That is because the consequences of the euro’s destruction are so catastrophic that no sensible policymaker could stand by and let it happen".

"Yet the threat of a disaster does not always stop it from happening. The chances of the euro zone being smashed apart have risen alarmingly, thanks to financial panic, a rapidly weakening economic outlook and pigheaded brinkmanship. The odds of a safe landing are dwindling fast".

Why does anyone think that the EU leaders have let it get to this, and have fiddled while the Euro burns, so to speak?

Is it some sort of tactics, an inability to act, or a return to national politics trumping EU politics?

Aidan1

Is it some sort of tactics, an inability to act, or a return to national politics trumping EU politics?

All of the above really - It's a question of widely divergent national interests, which in the context of the EU means that Govts have to try all solutions before they can try the one that has the best chance of working, despite the fact that waiting (a) makes it less likely to work, and (b) makes it more expensive than it otherwise might be.

Obviously, everyone wants the Germans to agree to the ECB printing money to support countries at risk of default, but the Germans and the ECB are resisting on the basis that they don't want to enter into that situation unless they have clear committments from all MS that they will take all necessary measures to meet the terms of their 'loans', and a means to enforce it. The 'EU' doesn't have the power to compel any MS to do anything like this, so it has to be done by agreement, hence the brinkmanship we see now.

Scofflaw

mistermouse wrote: »

But I am not sure there is a real sense of unity within the EU. Germany and France are stalling on any major fixes or decisions purely for domestic reasons and will be quite happy to let the PIIGS sink if it means they survive easier as far as I can see. They seem to be a major part of the instability

Also, I hear people defending the EU as giving us xbillions, they are not giving us anything, they are lending us money, previously at punitive rates and wit the expectation and oversight that we will pay it back at the risk of crashing our economy.

Its also most likely that they are lending us the money to shore up their banks lending to us, no matter how it is or has been spent in the past.

There certainly is to me a sense of European players looking after themselves at all costs first. Not a sense of a common union. I did not think the idea of Greece holding a referendum was good for stability but it sure was obvious what German and French leaders though of anyone else playing to their electorate, percisely what they are doing themselves daily

Sure - crises tend to do this, though. At the end of the day the EU is a framework operated jointly by the Member States, not a federation, and when a crisis hits, a lot of national politicians will tend to think of their national interests first. We can hardly complain, though, because one of the first - and most dramatic, and unpopular - unilateral actions taken by a Member State was our bank guarantee.

It's like the quip about the US - that it will do the right thing, but only after it has exhausted every other option. The EU is the same.

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair

Aidan1 wrote: »

All of the above really - It's a question of widely divergent national interests, which in the context of the EU means that Govts have to try all solutions before they can try the one that has the best chance of working, despite the fact that waiting (a) makes it less likely to work, and (b) makes it more expensive than it otherwise might be.

Obviously, everyone wants the Germans to agree to the ECB printing money to support countries at risk of default, but the Germans and the ECB are resisting on the basis that they don't want to enter into that situation unless they have clear committments from all MS that they will take all necessary measures to meet the terms of their 'loans', and a means to enforce it. The 'EU' doesn't have the power to compel any MS to do anything like this, so it has to be done by agreement, hence the brinkmanship we see now.

Maybe that is a major flaw if the time taken to do someting so urgent takes years to achieve.

And another major flaw to let individual countries keep borrowing on the never never for years and years, and also anothe major mistake to abandon the rules of capitalism and prop up failing institutions.

Where we go from here is uncertain, but the main lesson we have to learn is for the electorate to change the way they vote, and to introduce new more effective ways of holding the executive to account. parliament has to restore itself as the power in the land, and the whip system should be abolished at the first opportunity.