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

poeticseraphim

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/eus-barroso-urges-federal-horizon-114223993.html

In his annual state of the union speech Barroso called for federation of nation states and said a new plan and treaty would be put in place by 2014 and this would include a common military policy. With an army. All this is to save the Euro. Because of course saving the Euro is why you should create a federation...it's perfectly reasonable thing to do for a failed currency and we obviously need common military poilcy to do it.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/eus-barroso-urges-new-federal-horizon/articleshow/16367785.cms


He said it would not be a supernation state.

To me this just says that he wants more power handed over to the EU parliment without more democracy handed back in exchange.

It could end up being democracy China style.


Oi EU noooooooo.

So our problems are not caused by a merchant political class with need for economic and political reform that is different in each country according to each countries issues.

It is due to lack of integration...and not having an army......

I am Irish......i want to stay that way:mad:

http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2438/barroso-calls-for-eu-federation-of-nation-states

What way will you vote?

Will they give the rest of the EU a referendum??

Erm..the UK is going to go ballistic ..i don't blame them.

poeticseraphim

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

hatrickpatrick

If there's a new treaty we'll get a vote, and I hope I can say with confidence that the Irish people would accept a federal Europe over our dead bodies.

BluntGuy

poeticseraphim wrote: »

In his annual state of the union speech Barroso called for federation of nation states and said a new plan and treaty would be put in place by 2014 and this would include a common military policy. With an army. All this is to save the Euro. Because of course saving the Euro is why you should create a federation...it's perfectly reasonable thing to do for a failed currency and we obviously need common military poilcy to do it.

Barroso wrote:

The world needs a Europe that is capable of deploying military missions to help stabilize the situation in crisis areas. We need to launch a comprehensive review of European capabilities and begin truly collective defense planning. Yes, we need to reinforce our Common Foreign and Security Policy and a common approach to defense matters because together we have the power, and the scale to shape the world into a fairer, rules based and human rights' abiding place.

Doesn't say anything there about an army. But why are you so vehemently against a coordinated European defense strategy?

poeticseraphim wrote:

To me this just says that he wants more power handed over to the EU parliment without more democracy handed back in exchange.

It could end up being democracy China style.

I dunno his speech seemed to suggest the complete opposite:

Barroso wrote:

Yes, globalisation demands more European unity.

More unity demands more integration.

More integration demands more democracy, European democracy.

In Europe, this means first and foremost accepting that we are all in the same boat.

It means recognising the commonality of our European interests.

It means embracing the interdependence of our destinies.

And it means demanding a true sense of common responsibility and solidarity.

poeticseraphim wrote:

Oi EU noooooooo.

So our problems are not caused by a merchant political class with need for economic and political reform that is different in each country according to each countries issues.

It is due to lack of integration...and not having an army......

Do you not feel that he makes a valid point here:

Barroso wrote:

First, very important decisions for our future are taken at European summits. But then, the next day, we see some of those very same people who took those decisions undermining them... And then we get a problem of credibility. A problem of confidence.

It is not acceptable to present these European meetings as if they were boxing events, claiming a knockout victory over a rival. We cannot belong to the same Union and behave as if we don't.

...

If Europe's political actors do not abide by the rules and the decisions they have set themselves, how can they possibly convince others that they are determined to solve this crisis together?

The reality is that in an interconnected world, Europe's Member States on their own are no longer able to effectively steer the course of events. But at the same time, they have not yet equipped their Union - our Union —with the instruments needed to cope with this new reality.

poeticseraphim wrote:

I am Irish......i want to stay that way:mad:

How would any of the proposals make you less "Irish"?

Will they give the rest of the EU a referendum??

Who is "they" and how are these referendums "given" according to you?

poeticseraphim

A common military policy gives the EU direct imput into the army of eu nations...that is an EU army.He mentioned the EU intervening in Syria..not France not Germany the EU i do believe he means an EU army. He said 'the world needs an Eu that is capable of deploying military actions'.

We are a nuetral nation...and before you harp on about 'we really aren't' yes we are we don't send Irish citizens into combat. And there is a lot to be feared from a harmonised EU military. Generally superpowers do not behave ethically when it comes to militarisation and i have no wish to become a second America.

A federal EU takes more sovereignty and more nationhood. That is less Irish.

I heard no valid points in his Speech merely delusion from the reality of the truth.

The truth is i like many people do not want more intergration.

I do not feel any common European interests nor share them.

I do not share a feeling of common responsibilty and soldliadrity.

My interests are not European...they are my own and i am well able to look after them thank you.

I wish to be a part of a nuetral nation that shares my values...the EU fed style does not share my values.

There is nothing in that speech that details how to the EU any more democratic...but plenty that takes away sovreign power.

I would want the unelected commision gone or the role of making law go to the elected EU meps i also want meps to declare what EP group they will join when they get to the EP. And a directly elected president.

By they i mean sovreign states and the EU ....this must be given an electoral mandate I realize Germany cannot have a national Ref but they would have to have a national plebiscite.

I am not comfortable becoming a citizen of a federal eu without knowing if fellow citizens consent.

I am tired of people not admitting the Eurozone has been a disaster...the answer is not i think a FED EU

That we can have democracy beyond a national level is nonsense. Just like a currency for many different nations was nonsense.

Nodin

poeticseraphim wrote: »

A common military policy gives the EU direct imput into the army of eu nations....

In what precise way, might I ask?

BluntGuy

poeticseraphim wrote: »

A common military policy gives the EU direct imput into the army of eu nations...that is an EU army.He mentioned the EU intervening in Syria..not France not Germany the EU i do believe he means an EU army. He said 'the world needs an Eu that is capable of deploying military actions'.

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

And there is a lot to be feared from a harmonised EU military. Generally superpowers do not behave ethically when it comes to militarisation and i have no wish to become a second America.

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

A federal EU takes more sovereignty and more nationhood. That is less Irish.

Oh okay. So what.

I heard no valid points in his Speech merely delusion from the reality of the truth.

No valid points at all?

The truth is i like many people do not want more intergration.

Fair enough. Why?

do not feel any common European interests nor share them.

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

I do not share a feeling of common responsibilty and soldliadrity.

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

My interests are not European...they are my own and i am well able to look after them thank you.

So wait it's only about individual interests now?

There is nothing in that speech that details how to the EU any more democratic...but plenty that takes away sovreign power.

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

I would want the unelected commision gone or the role of making law go to the elected EU meps i also want meps to declare what EP group they will join when they get to the EP. And a directly elected president.

Hm. How would a directly elected president work.

I am not comfortable becoming a citizen of a federal eu without knowing if fellow citizens consent.

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

I am tired of people not admitting the Eurozone has been a disaster...the answer is not i think a FED EU

How has it been a disaster?

That we can have democracy beyond a national level is nonsense.

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

Just like a currency for many different nations was nonsense.

Why?

poeticseraphim

BluntGuy wrote: »

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



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



Oh okay. So what.



No valid points at all?



Fair enough. Why?



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



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



So wait it's only about individual interests now?



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



Hm. How would a directly elected president work.



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



How has it been a disaster?



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



Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

There is also the absence of a fiscal transfer union.

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


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


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

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

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

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

Transnational republicanism perhaps....

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

Federal Republicanism...hmm better idea

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

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

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

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

amen

We are a nuetral nation...and before you harp on about 'we really aren't' yes we are we don't send Irish citizens into combat

sorry in what way are we neutral ? We have soldiers in Afghanistan. I think we had them in Sierra Leon.

As for neutral that normally means you can defend your neutrallity which we can't.

As for a federated Europe bring it. Most of the decent legislation in Ireland, equal pay, civil rights, environmental law, employment law etc has been driven from Europe.

hatrickpatrick

BluntGuy wrote: »

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



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

And what if the Irish people differ on certain issues, in terms of defense? Do you want to see Ireland's name signed on to a war even if the vast majority here don't approve of it? Such decisions should always be up to individual nations.

Oh okay. So what.

So we the Irish people will have less direct control over the laws which govern us. Does this honestly not bother you?

Fair enough. Why?

Because the more locally a decision is made, the more power each individual voter has. We the Irish people are already ignored by our own government, if we just become one tiny province in a much larger area of citizens our voices will be nil.

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

We have some common interests. In other areas the Irish people might want to live a different way, and we should be prevented from doign that by being outvoted by people in other nations.

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

Because we have our own history? Because we grew up here? Because our ancestors dies to give us control over our own country instead of having decisions made for us by foreigners?

So wait it's only about individual interests now?

It's both, obviously.

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

Define "we"?
Also, not everyone actually wants to go along with globalization in the first place.

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

No, it'll probably be forced in through fear mongering and threats. I would hope by now the Irish people are wise to that act though.

How has it been a disaster?

Are you serious?! Look at the chaos it's caused! The Euro was an extremely poorly designed concept. The concept itself isn't bad, but not nearly enough thought went into it, as we are now paying heavy prices for.

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

More power to the individual voter. It's like how you have more individual influence on government when you're lobbying a county council instead of the national parliament. Simple maths.
Think of it like talking about hospital numbers here. We talk about the doctor/patient ratio. More patients + same number of doctors = less time for each patient. Same applies to politics, lobbying becomes less and less effective the wider the area being governed.

Why?

Even more of the pro Europe lobby seems to agree that a common currency with different individual economies and economic policies wasn't a well thought out idea.

RandolphEsq

poeticseraphim wrote: »

To me this just says that he wants more power handed over to the EU parliment without more democracy handed back in exchange.

More power to the EP necessarily involves more democracy to the E.U. due to the E.P. being the only proper democratic institution. But I agree that it isn't the most approachable type of democratic institution at present, despite Lisbon Treaty additives.

donaghs

amen wrote: »

We are a nuetral nation...and before you harp on about 'we really aren't' yes we are we don't send Irish citizens into combat

As for a federated Europe bring it. Most of the decent legislation in Ireland, equal pay, civil rights, environmental law, employment law etc has been driven from Europe.

That's mental. Even if EU diktats have been good for Ireland, and produce better law and conditions than our own elected politicians can do...
What happens if they start dictating terms to us that you don't like? Ireland will just be a pimple on the backside of a Federal EU, and will be powerless.
If Irish democracy is so bad, why not just find us a "benevolent dictator" who knows what's best for us? And pray of course that the next dictator is also well intentioned....

The single currency was doomed to fail, but was rushed forward to further the federal integrationist project. More of the same from Barroso

The Browser

Here's you going on about Ireland, as though people here are all of the same mind and persuasions:

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So we the Irish people will have less direct control over the laws which govern us.

Because the more locally a decision is made, the more power each individual voter has. We the Irish people are already ignored by our own government, if we just become one tiny province in a much larger area of citizens our voices will be nil.



We have some common interests. In other areas the Irish people might want to live a different way, and we should be prevented from doign that by being outvoted by people in other nations.



Because we have our own history? Because we grew up here? Because our ancestors dies to give us control over our own country instead of having decisions made for us by foreigners?

And here you are when talking about Europe:

Define "we"

Yes, please define "we" seen as how you use the word so much.

Why is "we" legitimate at the Irish level but not legitimate at the European level?
Nations are just made up things, btw. Looks like you've bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

This State has failed, and I don't feel any particular allegiance to it. It's not an engine that drives us towards any common objective that I can see. Education is something I value. Here, we make it a secondary objective in a system that prioritises the needs of religions and of the Irish language.

The lack of any substance in this State can be seen in the way we walked into the euro, with a "changeover plan" that amounted to making sure that everyone knew it was worth about 80 pence and that the ATMs would have the right paper on the right day.

We've gone from copying whatever the UK did, to an extent that would make you wonder what all the fuss was about that made us seek independence, to letting Europe make our laws for us.

For all that, I've no special desire to be part of a European federation; I'm just too uncertain over what the outcome will be of the unravelling of the Ponzi scheme previously known as the "European Social Model".

Something in between would do. Rejoining the UK would be fine by me, assuming we can do something to sort out the legacy debt mountain created by our ill-fated membership of the eurozone.

Eggy Baby!

We are a nuetral nation...and before you harp on about 'we really aren't' yes we are we don't send Irish citizens into combat. And there is a lot to be feared from a harmonised EU military. Generally superpowers do not behave ethically when it comes to militarisation and i have no wish to become a second America.

Ireland's neutrality could be easily respected in terms of an EU federation. As with others.

tbh, I'm not quite sure what to make of these comments by Barroso. If I'm honest, they couldn't have come at a worse time. A time when a hell of a lot of Irish etc. are beginning to start reconsidering this EU lark. Its an interesting concept, but Barroso stating it at this time just seems forced and desperate. As if he could try and shoehorn this thing while the member states are filled with delusions that it could save the euro and rectify their financial woes.

I don't however, like the idea of having to fork out so that a European army can have an arms race with the rest of the world. EndWar much?

hatrickpatrick

The Browser wrote: »

Here's you going on about Ireland, as though people here are all of the same mind and persuasions:



And here you are when talking about Europe:


Yes, please define "we" seen as how you use the word so much.

Why is "we" legitimate at the Irish level but not legitimate at the European level?
Nations are just made up things, btw. Looks like you've bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

I'd be much happier to define "we" as a smaller group, which is why I'm always arguing for delegation of powers from national to local government. Giving away sovereignty to Europe is a step in the opposite direction, it's taking power one step further away from the people.

John Mongo

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

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

poeticseraphim

John Mongo wrote: »

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

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

I have :-(

Scofflaw

A "federation of nation states" isn't the same thing as a "federal EU" in the sense that most people (including myself) seem to be opposed to a federal EU. And the call for more democracy is both apposite and necessary, because the crisis has resulted in further integration, but without any increase in democratic control at the European level.

I see the usual upcoming irony here. The integration that the crisis has produced has been possible without treaty change - things like the banking union, and the increased integration of economic decision-making - and will not be prevented by opposing the kind of treaty Barroso sees as necessary. What probably would be prevented is the corresponding increase in democratic control at the European level, since that currently doesn't exist, and isn't possible without treaty changes.

So I can see another treaty debate where opposition in the name of national democracy will be opposing increased European democracy simply because that increase in democracy constitutes a recognition of integration that has already happened and which will not be reversed by defeating the treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

poeticseraphim

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

It is all unique.

It will depend on the treaty that is proposed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scofflaw

poeticseraphim wrote: »

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

It is all unique.

It will depend on the treaty that is proposed.

Not for many, I suspect...

poeticseraphim wrote: »

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

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

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

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

To be fair, Gay Mitchell is far from the worst of our politicians.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

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

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

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

True. Most of the issues in EU accounts are at the national level.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The federal reserve did not cause the euro crisis...i always said europeans had started banking like Americans only not very good at it...

Eh, I'd say that they're equally good at it, since the blowup was a natural result of being "good at" the way banking has been over the last two decades - a design feature, in effect.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

in an economy designed for more regulation..but it is time the ECB europe and member states start taking more accountability. It was the EU's incompetance too not just certain member states..

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

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

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

'Mkay.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

At least you all could elect someone who had a policy not to further integrate the EU..although i doubt such a candidat will emerge.

But you could through out this group of idiots on to the streets where they belong.


You could cause a landslide elcetion that would be against this EU regime in favour of a complete change.