Is the EU doomed?

plasmaguy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

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

What disdain?

Scofflaw

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

meglome wrote: »

What disdain?

Thx Richard.

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

Lantus

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

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

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

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

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".

Bullrush

No. I think we might be in trouble though. There's still the chance of a 'inner' and 'outer' solution - Germany, France and a few others on the inside. Ireland and the other basket cases on the outside.

Lantus

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Because oil is the critical energy source from which all goods are derived.

Everything is made from oil, all plastics and metals, from the toothbrush to the car tire, to the entire car itself, all food is made from machines made from oil, delivered by oil and bought by people who drive to shops in cars made from oil & run on oil.

There is nothing in our modern world which is not made by using oil at some point and at this stage cannot be substituted out for something else. ANyway, thats another story.

The immediate problem is the EU.

The real threat is not Greece which will ext but the knock on effects i will have as the 400billion debts held by europe and lend to greece ignite fear across markets world wide.

At this point all eyes will be on Spain who has been hiding in the long grass for far too long and is a very sick animal. Spain needs the same medicine greece is about to get, its own currency back. And if Greece sets a precedence by leaving then so can Spain and so can Italy. Before we all sit down to turkey in December I predict that psetas will be back in circulation.

If I was a german chancellor I might be thinking about how I could exit first and leave the mess behind me to protect my own interests.

It's likley that the markets will lose all confidence in the banking systems of the PIGS. That doesn't bode well for Ireland. I'd say it was 50/50 as to whether we go back to a punt at this stage.

Expect all banks to start printing money like its xmas. QE here we come!!!!

Scofflaw

Lantus wrote: »

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.

More probably we're in the plateau phase.

Lantus wrote: »

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.

There are some complicating factors, but I take it you've seen the IMF working paper: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12109.pdf

Lantus wrote: »

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.

Hm.

Lantus wrote: »

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.......

That's probably not an accurate estimate, since a lot of the population growth has been achieved in countries with relatively low per capita fossil fuel use. However, the amount of oil poured into agriculture is fairly scary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Lantus wrote: »

Because oil is the critical energy source from which all goods are derived.

Everything is made from oil, all plastics and metals, from the toothbrush to the car tire, to the entire car itself, all food is made from machines made from oil, delivered by oil and bought by people who drive to shops in cars made from oil & run on oil.

There is nothing in our modern world which is not made by using oil at some point and at this stage cannot be substituted out for something else. ANyway, thats another story.

OK, you're overdoing this. Metals aren't made from oil. Nor is "all food made from oil".

Lantus wrote: »

The immediate problem is the EU.

The real threat is not Greece which will ext but the knock on effects i will have as the 400billion debts held by europe and lend to greece ignite fear across markets world wide.

At this point all eyes will be on Spain who has been hiding in the long grass for far too long and is a very sick animal. Spain needs the same medicine greece is about to get, its own currency back. And if Greece sets a precedence by leaving then so can Spain and so can Italy. Before we all sit down to turkey in December I predict that psetas will be back in circulation.

If I was a german chancellor I might be thinking about how I could exit first and leave the mess behind me to protect my own interests.

It's likley that the markets will lose all confidence in the banking systems of the PIGS. That doesn't bode well for Ireland. I'd say it was 50/50 as to whether we go back to a punt at this stage.

Expect all banks to start printing money like its xmas. QE here we come!!!!

You're not connecting premise A with conclusion B.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zab

Metal is made from oil?

Lantus

Scofflaw wrote: »

OK, you're overdoing this. Metals aren't made from oil. Nor is "all food made from oil".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Metals are not made directly from oil all but their distribution around the world is wholly dependant on oil.

Our modern food production is 100% dependant on cheap oil for its production. All modern farming requires oil driven machinary (mostly made using oil) at every stage from preparing soil to seeding to cultivation to harvesting and distribution. Most fertilisers are derived from natural gas. Food distribution to shops requires oil and of course so does most of our participation. SO yes your right it isn't 'made' from oil but without an abundant supply of cheap oil the mechanism of food production we know today simply wouldn't exist.

I certianly think that well within my lifetime (ideally another 50 years if all goes well.) we will be in a situation where if you cannot walk a short distance to where food can be grown you will probably go hungry.

oscarBravo

Lantus wrote: »

I certianly think that well within my lifetime (ideally another 50 years if all goes well.) we will be in a situation where if you cannot walk a short distance to where food can be grown you will probably go hungry.

Looking forward to people going hungry? That's a charitable sentiment.

Lantus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Looking forward to people going hungry? That's a charitable sentiment.

certainly not! wasn't looking forward to a recession or losing my job or all of the current economic mess we are still in. But wishing that something wont happen just because it is 'unthinkable' wont change the facts. The belief that somehow everything will all be ok 'just because' is a falsehood that takes a lot of effort to shake off. Even in the current situation our political leaders across europe have sold us lies at every turn. From there will never be a recession, to the immortal words 'soft landing' (which has never occured once in history by the way) to we must recapitalise the banks or else.....its all baloney and we just keep sucking it up and saying hey you need to come with a solution! They have no idea what they are doing!

Its human nature to want to believe that its all going to be ok. Even I was guilty of chanting the soft landing mantra even when everything inside me told me that it would be otherwise. Thats a mistake I wont make again.

Zab

Lantus wrote: »

I certianly think that well within my lifetime (ideally another 50 years if all goes well.) we will be in a situation where if you cannot walk a short distance to where food can be grown you will probably go hungry.

Not allowing any significant probability of tech saving us from this?

Anyway, I think you brought oil into this. While rising oil prices hasn't helped matters, I don't believe that it's caused the current financial crisis or will turn out to be the insurmountable problem if the euro fails (assuming it doesn't truly skyrocket of course).

Scofflaw

Lantus wrote: »

Metals are not made directly from oil all but their distribution around the world is wholly dependant on oil.

Our modern food production is 100% dependant on cheap oil for its production. All modern farming requires oil driven machinary (mostly made using oil) at every stage from preparing soil to seeding to cultivation to harvesting and distribution. Most fertilisers are derived from natural gas. Food distribution to shops requires oil and of course so does most of our participation. SO yes your right it isn't 'made' from oil but without an abundant supply of cheap oil the mechanism of food production we know today simply wouldn't exist.

Yes, that's better put. Were I you, I would avoid the "metals are made from oil" line, though, because it sounds completely barmy.

Lantus wrote: »

I certianly think that well within my lifetime (ideally another 50 years if all goes well.) we will be in a situation where if you cannot walk a short distance to where food can be grown you will probably go hungry.

Do you? I have to say I don't. We might well be a couple of decades away from a proper technological transition, and some bits of it will be uncomfortable, but I think you're falling into the Victorian trap of reckoning that by the year 2000 the world would be 18 foot deep in horse manure. They couldn't predict that the internet would make that layer rather deeper but entirely virtual.

cordially,
Scofflaw

plasmaguy

Who are the two most important people in Europe?

That's right, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande.

Tell me one Irish person who voted for either of these politicians?

That's right, none.

So the most powerful people over our lives, we didn't even vote for them. That's just one way the EU is not properly democractic, the people who have power over us, we didn't vote for.

The European Parliament is a sick joke, it has next to no real power.

The European Commission is far more powerful, but we didn't directly vote for one person on that commission.

The ECB is probably the third most important organisation in Europe, and we didn't directly vote for anyone there.

The Irish people or the Greek people for that matter have voted for not a single person of importance in the EU, and MEPs are nobodies in the EU scheme of things.

There is a gigantic democratic deficit in the EU, and that's just the way the likes of Merkel and Hollande like it, they effectively running the show to please their own electorates.

And then you will get some people who say yeh but voting directly for people is silly, etc.

Threads like these in any case tend to get over run with brain dead Euro philes who accept everything unquestioning from the EU.

Scofflaw

plasmaguy wrote: »

Who are the two most important people in Europe?

That's right, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande.

Tell me one Irish person who voted for either of these politicians?

That's right, none.

So the most powerful people over our lives, we didn't even vote for them. That's just one way the EU is not properly democractic, the people who have power over us, we didn't vote for.

Actually, that's rubbish. Neither Merkel nor Hollande either know or care whether hospital services will be cut in Ballyslapem, or what the Irish dole rate is.

plasmaguy wrote: »

The European Parliament is a sick joke, it has next to no real power.

It has quite a lot, particularly since Lisbon - but it doesn't have power over the euro or the bailouts, which are in national hands, just as you apparently want.

plasmaguy wrote: »

The European Commission is far more powerful, but we didn't directly vote for one person on that commission.

No, our government appointed one.

plasmaguy wrote: »

The ECB is probably the third most important organisation in Europe, and we didn't directly vote for anyone there.

Nor did anybody else, because you don't elect central banks.

plasmaguy wrote: »

The Irish people or the Greek people for that matter have voted for not a single person of importance in the EU, and MEPs are nobodies in the EU scheme of things.

There is a gigantic democratic deficit in the EU, and that's just the way the likes of Merkel and Hollande like it, they effectively running the show to please their own electorates.

Dear oh dear...and you think that's the fault of the EU? European politics is suddenly important in Ireland because Ireland is broke and European countries are bailing us out - and it's national politicians like Merkel and Hollande who are important precisely because the bailout effort is not in the hands of the EU.

So you're complaining about the EU over something it's not doing, and what you're whinging about is that the people who are bailing us out are important even though we didn't elect them.

But we did elect the people who made Merkel and Hollande important to us - at every election from 1997-2007.

plasmaguy wrote: »

And then you will get some people who say yeh but voting directly for people is silly, etc.

It often is. Voting for central bankers is like voting for the judiciary. Voting for the Commission would be completely contradictory - they're supposed to be independent of national concerns, not promising the sun moon and stars to national electorates.

plasmaguy wrote: »

Threads like these in any case tend to get over run with brain dead Euro philes who accept everything unquestioning from the EU.

That's not a contribution to the debate - it's just an insult. Nor is there any sense in which I accept anything unquestioningly from the EU - but we do have a lot of people who are inevitably and invariably opposed to anything EU.

BettyM

The emotive terms of the title to this thread apart, it seems more and more clear that the EU is becoming more and more disfunctional. The problem is it doesn't seem to realise that.

The people of Europe realise more and more that the utopian dream is, in reality, becoming a nightmare. While Angela Merkel ruthlessy defends the interests of the own electorate at the expense of the rest of the EU, ( quite properly as what else has she been elected for by the German people?), and refuses the stupid propositoin of spending all Germany's money on the debts of other incontinent governments, the irish politicians roll over and have no answers to anything, except the ludicrous and incredible plan to keep on borrowing more and more money as the solution to the problem that Ireland is subsumed by debt. You really couldn't make this up and be believed.

Neither the EU nor irish politicians are any part of a solution to the problem and are, in fact, both the main contributin factors to the problem to which they now act out the role of telling us all, (with a straight face hiding their contempt and laughter), that they, the people who have caused the problems, are now going to be the designers of the solution to the problems they, themselves, have caused.

Perhaps it's true we get the politicians we deserve, politicians who regard the preservation of the Euro as sacrosanct, to prop up an ideological delusion almost as a religious doctrine, and appear to care little about the suffering of the individuals around the EU just so long as their precious Euro is preserved. Of course, eventually the Euro will be no more, the symbol of their vain political projecty dead and, sadluy, with it much of what we now know as the EU will also be consigned to the dustbin of history as an experiment which went wrong. We wil alll look back at these events and hide opur heads in shame that we elected politicians who allowed this to happen, and allowed ourselves to be bullied by the same politicians into voting to give so much power away to others.

Mrs Merkel is quite right to defend the interests of her own electorate, and the scandal is that the Irish government seems hell bent on rushing to destroy the interests of the irish electorate, and all because they want a good report from the strict priest-like the EU has become.

It has been said that before 1921 Ireland was ruled from Westminister, after 1921 it was ruled from the Vatican, and now it seems Irish Politicians, having managed to purge Ireland of both Westminister and the Vatican, are intent on willingly being ruled by Brussles, signing away powers after powers into perpetuity, and bullying the Irish electorate into agreeing.

Wil there ever come a time the Irish will rule themselves as a confident, prosperous, proud and free nation, rather then the unedifying spectacle of always looking to be ruled by someone else?

Amtmann

plasmaguy wrote: »

Who are the two most important people in Europe?

That's right, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande.

Tell me one Irish person who voted for either of these politicians?

That's right, none.

So the most powerful people over our lives, we didn't even vote for them. That's just one way the EU is not properly democractic, the people who have power over us, we didn't vote for.

The European Parliament is a sick joke, it has next to no real power.

The European Commission is far more powerful, but we didn't directly vote for one person on that commission.

The ECB is probably the third most important organisation in Europe, and we didn't directly vote for anyone there.

The Irish people or the Greek people for that matter have voted for not a single person of importance in the EU, and MEPs are nobodies in the EU scheme of things.

There is a gigantic democratic deficit in the EU, and that's just the way the likes of Merkel and Hollande like it, they effectively running the show to please their own electorates.

And then you will get some people who say yeh but voting directly for people is silly, etc.

Threads like these in any case tend to get over run with brain dead Euro philes who accept everything unquestioning from the EU.

I think your post is rubbish, for the reasons highlighted by Scofflaw. Unfortunately, though, it's also easier for the masses to lap up, which many do. The EU is very high-minded. It requires a bit of intelligence and focus and rationalism to understand. It's not soundbite friendly. Given that most people don't think very deeply about anything, are prone to soundbites, and generally don't question claims that *seem* to make sense to them at a superficial level, I agree that support for the EU project is faltering.

Scofflaw

BettyM wrote: »

The emotive terms of the title to this thread apart...

...utopian dream is, in reality, becoming a nightmare...

...telling us all, (with a straight face hiding their contempt and laughter)...

...alll look back at these events and hide opur heads in shame...allowed ourselves to be bullied...

...hell bent on rushing to destroy the interests of the irish electorate...all because they want a good report from the strict priest-like the EU has become...

...willingly being ruled by Brussles...bullying the Irish electorate...

Wil there ever come a time the Irish will rule themselves as a confident, prosperous, proud and free nation, rather then the unedifying spectacle of always looking to be ruled by someone else?

I'm terribly sorry, but the irony of your opening line is too good to be missed.

your ironing is delicious,
Scofflaw

BettyM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm terribly sorry, but the irony of your opening line is too good to be missed.

your ironing is delicious,
Scofflaw

I am glad you enjoyed it, although surprised that you not only could enjoy ityourself, but had to tell everyon how much you enjoyed it. Or might it be that you are confused between irony and ironing? :-)

meglome

BettyM wrote: »

I am glad you enjoyed it, although surprised that you not only could enjoy ityourself, but had to tell everyon how much you enjoyed it.

I can't help but notice you call people out if you perceive even whiff of this but do it yourself freely.

Wibbs

BettyM wrote:

Wil there ever come a time the Irish will rule themselves as a confident, prosperous, proud and free nation, rather then the unedifying spectacle of always looking to be ruled by someone else?

Yep, when we have a population of 50 million and find some way to grow both the size of the country and salable commodities found within. This notion of Ireland "free" and alone - which is essentially what you're talking about - is kinda daft in practical terms in today's world. We need to have a seat at the bigger tables in order to give our people the lives they want. Sure we could be "a nation once again" of near subsistence farmers with our biggest export being our people. Been there, we didn't like it. Plus a nation like that is far more open to corrupt internal influence by it's very nature. We've been there too.

On the thread topic: No, indeed this euro crisis will likely strengthen it and make it more federalised. I'd leave that up to individuals to decide whether that is a bad or good thing, an opportunity or not. The time is upon all the member states to decide in or out, or hanging on the periphery. I don't see the euro failing anyway. A couple of countries may leave, but the core will remain. It's gonna be the EU's biggest test so far of course. No doubt about that and it's not gonna be pretty and there will be casualties.

FreudianSlippers

BettyM wrote: »

The emotive terms of the title to this thread apart, it seems more and more clear that the EU is becoming more and more disfunctional. The problem is it doesn't seem to realise that.

Funny, I see little to no dysfunction in the EU. It still does what it was established to do; the only real complaint I see is that it does this too well (free movement for workers being a prime example). Can you perhaps provide examples of dysfunction in the EU?

the ludicrous and incredible plan to keep on borrowing more and more money as the solution to the problem that Ireland is subsumed by debt.

This is always an interesting one for me. The side calling for a 'no' vote in the referendum are calling it the "Austerity Treaty". What baffles me, frankly, is that if we are cut off from the ESM and can no longer access its monies, doesn't that mean we would have to implement the most burdening austerity imaginable? This point always seems to be rebutted by an "awr yeah shure well they're just bluffing... they won't actually cut us off!"
But what happens if they do? How do we keep funding ourselves? How do we keep spending massive amounts of our budget on social welfare - the very target of the 'no' vote campaign; fighting for the social welfare recipient and calling it an "Austerity Treaty" when in reality a no vote and no further funding will effectively end social welfare.

Neither the EU nor irish politicians are any part of a solution to the problem and are, in fact, both the main contributin factors to the problem to which they now act out the role of telling us all, (with a straight face hiding their contempt and laughter), that they, the people who have caused the problems, are now going to be the designers of the solution to the problems they, themselves, have caused.

I recall a general election not so far in the past. I would agree that Ireland's problem is systemic - but at the same time the biggest problem for Ireland is her people: the majority of whom want to have their cake and eat it too.

Perhaps it's true we get the politicians we deserve, politicians who regard the preservation of the Euro as sacrosanct, to prop up an ideological delusion almost as a religious doctrine, and appear to care little about the suffering of the individuals around the EU just so long as their precious Euro is preserved.

I take little weight from the ramblings of people who can't get the difference between the EU and Eurozone clear in their own minds.

Of course, eventually the Euro will be no more, the symbol of their vain political projecty dead and, sadluy, with it much of what we now know as the EU will also be consigned to the dustbin of history as an experiment which went wrong. We wil alll look back at these events and hide opur heads in shame that we elected politicians who allowed this to happen, and allowed ourselves to be bullied by the same politicians into voting to give so much power away to others.

Ah, the grass over there does seem to be lush and green. How exactly do we get to his new utopia (to use your phrasing) where we abandon the Euro and things get miraculously better?

BettyM wrote: »

Or might it be that you are confused between irony and ironing? :-)

FreudianSlippers

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep, when we have a population of 50 million and find some way to grow both the size of the country and salable commodities found within. This notion of Ireland "free" and alone - which is essentially what you're talking about - is kinda daft in practical terms in today's world. We need to have a seat at the bigger tables in order to give our people the lives they want. Sure we could be "a nation once again" of near subsistence farmers with our biggest export being our people. Been there, we didn't like it. Plus a nation like that is far more open to corrupt internal influence by it's very nature. We've been there too.

I think our biggest problem is that we never utilised our position in Europe and the benefits that come from both EU and Eurozone membership. We are now seeing that we can play a role in the global economy but it is too little too late.

During our initial membership in the early 80s when we were getting money pumped into us by the EU, we should have optimised our ports, built up our infrastructure and marketed ourselves as exactly what we are: the most western, English speaking, educated and hard working port in Europe. This would have allowed us to utilise our natural resources and plentiful renewable energy sources and actually contribute to our own finances.

The problem is that the people want quick solutions and free money.

On the thread topic: No, indeed this euro crisis will likely strengthen it and make it more federalised. I'd leave that up to individuals to decide whether that is a bad or good thing, an opportunity or not. The time is upon all the member states to decide in or out, or hanging on the periphery. I don't see the euro failing anyway. A couple of countries may leave, but the core will remain. It's gonna be the EU's biggest test so far of course. No doubt about that and it's not gonna be pretty and there will be casualties.

I am frequently amused at the people who are fighting a more federalised Europe who then turn around almost with certainty and talk of emigration to "America" [sic]. I think the problem is hyperbole and spin; talk of losing national identity, "sovereignty", etc.
Nobody seems to stop and think about the realities of a more integrated European economy... challenging the US and China as an economic entity whilst retaining national identity. Anyone who would suggest that France and Germany want anything to do with each other's national identity is talking out their arse.