EU is awarded the Nobel Peace prize

paulaa

It has just been announced on BBC News 24that the European Union has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2012 for over 6 decades of peace, democracy and human rights

The EU has been a key in transforming Europe "from a continent of wars to a continent of peace," Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said in announcing the award in Oslo.

"This is a message to Europe to do everything they can to secure what they've achieved and move forward," Jagland said, saying it was a reminder of what would be lost "if the union is allowed to collapse".

He praised the 27-nation EU for rebuilding after World War Two and for its role in spreading stability after the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall.

The prize, worth $1.2 million, will be presented in Oslo on December 10. The decision by the five-member panel, led by Jagland who is also Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, was unanimous.

The EU won from a field of 231 candidates including Russian dissidents and religious leaders working for Muslim-Christian reconciliation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/12/us-nobel-peace-idUSBRE89A1N820121012

DaveyCakes

Very cynical move imo. The first time in its history that the popularity and widespread acceptance of the EU is in danger of slipping and this gets pulled out of the bag.

paulaa

Is this the first time a country or organisation was given this award ?

Ziphius

paulaa wrote: »

Is this the first time a country or organisation was given this award ?

No, in 2007 the peace prize was awarded to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and Al Gore.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

Ellis Dee

paulaa wrote: »

Is this the first time a country or organisation was given this award ?

No, other organisations that have received the award include the United Nations, Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Sixty years without a major conflict in western and central Europe certainly deserves some recognition and there can be no denying that the European Union has achieved a lot of other good things as well. That is why I welcome this award. The failings of the European Union were not a matter that the Norwegians saw as pertinent to its work of peace-building. Those failings can and maybe eventually will be redressed, which is a far better alternative than wrecking the whole imperfect structure.:cool:

As an added bonus, it will probably make a whole horde of eurosceptics, europhobes and assorted other right-wingers, who would probably like to see us go back to the old Europe of armed rivalry, choke on their breakfast cereal.:)

Eggy Baby!

‎"The Nobel Prize is a prize for all the citizens of the EU."

So I won a Nobel Prize? Groovy.

I have to admit, I've never heard of one being awarded to an organisation before.

Still, it makes a lot more sense than awarding one to Obama...

DaveyCakes

The EU did not "prevent war in Western and Central Europe for sixty years".

Firstly, no western or central European country was in any position, financially or militarily, to fight a war for a long time after WWII.

Secondly, the EU would never have been formed if there was even the slightest chance of a war being fought.

Thirdly, the NATO-Warsaw Pact nuclear balance was the real peacemaker.

DaveyCakes

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

So I won a Nobel Prize? Groovy.

I have to admit, I've never heard of one being awarded to an organisation before.

Still, it makes a lot more sense than awarding one to Obama...

Where do we all collect our cash? I make it about a million quid, divided by 500 million people. That's about one-fifth of a cent each:D

Scofflaw

DaveyCakes wrote: »

The EU did not "prevent war in Western and Central Europe for sixty years".

Firstly, no western or central European country was in any position, financially or militarily, to fight a war for a long time after WWII.

Secondly, the EU would never have been formed if there was even the slightest chance of a war being fought.

Thirdly, the NATO-Warsaw Pact nuclear balance was the real peacemaker.

I'm sure the Nobel Committee have little or no idea what they're about.

amused,
Scofflaw

DaveyCakes

Did I say they had little or no idea what they're about?

Scofflaw

DaveyCakes wrote: »

Did I say they had little or no idea what they're about?

Pretty much, yes. Also, you did so with a rather inaccurate version of history, given that European countries have fought a series of wars, both direct and proxy, after 1945 - just not with each other, despite continued differences and occasional friction. Presumably, had the Nobel Committee felt the prize was deserved by NATO (an organisation in quite serious need of a shot in the arm), they would have awarded it to NATO.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ardent

I'd take the opposite view of DaveyCakes. It's only been 60 odd years since the end of WWII and, when you think about it, the European Single Union has been the single biggest contributor towards peace and prosperity on the continent.

I have no issue with the award, sometimes you don't appreciate what you have until it's gone.

nagilum2

The Nobel Peace committee continues to make itself more ridiculous. They should just give the prize to themselves next year.

DaveyCakes

Scofflaw wrote: »

Pretty much, yes. Also, you did so with a rather inaccurate version of history, given that European countries have fought a series of wars, both direct and proxy, after 1945 - just not with each other, despite continued differences and occasional friction. Presumably, had the Nobel Committee felt the prize was deserved by NATO (an organisation in quite serious need of a shot in the arm), they would have awarded it to NATO.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm well aware of post-1945 wars, but I was replying to a poster who specifically talked about the absence of war in western and central Europe, for which the EU is given, in my opinion, way to much credit, mostly by itself.

Scofflaw

DaveyCakes wrote: »

I'm well aware of post-1945 wars, but I was replying to a poster who specifically talked about the absence of war in western and central Europe, for which the EU is given, in my opinion, way to much credit, mostly by itself.

That begins to look circular - you're claiming that the European countries were incapable of fighting wars with each other, as evidence of which you offer the fact that they didn't...

...and then, since that's obviously not strong enough to explain the peace in Europe, the peace is ascribed to NATO instead, an organisation which offered no alternative mechanisms of intra-European dispute resolution, which the EU specifically and deliberately did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eggy Baby!

DaveyCakes wrote: »

The EU did not "prevent war in Western and Central Europe for sixty years".

Firstly, no western or central European country was in any position, financially or militarily, to fight a war for a long time after WWII.

Secondly, the EU would never have been formed if there was even the slightest chance of a war being fought.

Thirdly, the NATO-Warsaw Pact nuclear balance was the real peacemaker.

It created peace through economic interdependence.

Scofflaw

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

It created peace through economic interdependence.

And by virtue of a permanent ongoing process of dialogue about that interdependence. It's far easier for countries that are meeting regularly across a spectrum of issues both to remember their common interests and discuss their differences.

NATO never provided either of those things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

poeticseraphim

Ellis Dee wrote: »

No, other organisations that have received the award include the United Nations, Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Sixty years without a major conflict in western and central Europe certainly deserves some recognition and there can be no denying that the European Union has achieved a lot of other good things as well. That is why I welcome this award. The failings of the European Union were not a matter that the Norwegians saw as pertinent to its work of peace-building. Those failings can and maybe eventually will be redressed, which is a far better alternative than wrecking the whole imperfect structure.:cool:

As an added bonus, it will probably make a whole horde of eurosceptics, europhobes and assorted other right-wingers, who would probably like to see us go back to the old Europe of armed rivalry, choke on their breakfast cereal.:)

You think someone being a Eurosceptic makes them want war? Or that it could happen now?

Also it is not only Eurosceptics who might balk at this. And it is not only Eurosceptics who ar dissapointed.


Some of the people who mosted wanted Europe to succeed are heartbroken and angry now. Some who even worked there.

I have never been i either camp honestly i see this as a little strange and convienent

The EU has doe a lot of good. but not in the field of peace and conflict resolution politics. It is just not the EU's bag at all. Northern Ireland and the Balkans were hugely indebted to the Americas and the British and not really to the EU.

The EU has accomplished a lot, it is amazing really but this seems to be at a bit of an angle and i prefer when they give it to individuals anyway

At least it isn't Bono.

The EU is not there to prevent war and it is not needed to prevent conflict either. I often wonder how friendly supposed Europhiles think our fellow human beings actually are when they think if the EU dissolved tomorrow the chances of conflict go up. Maybe they are too suspicious of people from other countries to be honest.

Scofflaw

poeticseraphim wrote:

The EU has doe a lot of good. but not in the field of peace and conflict resolution politics. It is just not the EU's bag at all. Northern Ireland and the Balkans were hugely indebted to the Americas and the British and not really to the EU.

What? Who provides ongoing funding for peace and cross-border projects, the US or the EU? Hint: Peace III and InterReg IV are EU initiatives.

poeticseraphim wrote:

The EU is not there to prevent war and it is not needed to prevent conflict either. I often wonder how friendly supposed Europhiles think our fellow human beings actually are when they think if the EU dissolved tomorrow the chances of conflict go up. Maybe they are too suspicious of people from other countries to be honest.

I hope that's intended as irony.

cordially,
Scofflaw

poeticseraphim

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

It created peace through economic interdependence.

It SUSTAINED peace through economic interdependance, sustaining peace is harder to do so it is noteworthy.

Peace had been achieved through conflict cessation of that conflict through the victory of those with good intention and careful boundaries and caveated conditions created through negotiatation and treaties.

Post ww2 you could say this continuing negotiation over the years evolved into the EEC then later the EU.

The Americans funded and aided a lot of this at the begining and they should not be forgotten.

poeticseraphim

Scofflaw wrote: »

What? Who provides ongoing funding for peace and cross-border projects, the US or the EU? Hint: Peace III and InterReg IV are EU initiatives.



I hope that's intended as irony.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It is intended to parody the way they represent those who view the EU differently. It is equally ridiculous to portray either as war mongerors who distrust others. People are not going to stop liking their neighbours or like them any less if the EU dissolved tomorrow.

I notice you did not mention the poster who said

As an added bonus, it will probably make a whole horde of eurosceptics, europhobes and assorted other right-wingers, who would probably like to see us go back to the old Europe of armed rivalry, choke on their breakfast cereal

It is not quite Irony.....but then....




I don't agree with either Europhiles or Eurosceptics.....they both seem mad.

It is the British taxpayer who is the greatest unsung hero of the NI peace process. They have always funded the Army the NI itself community projects and the bulk of the cross border initiatives.

Eggy Baby!

The Americans funded and aided a lot of this at the begining and they should not be forgotten.

So let's give the Americans the peace prize......haha jk

JohnMc1

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

So I won a Nobel Prize? Groovy.

I have to admit, I've never heard of one being awarded to an organisation before.

Still, it makes a lot more sense than awarding one to Obama...

I was wondering that too. So we can all say we're Nobel Peace Prize recipients. That will look sweet on the CV.

Eggy Baby!

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I was wondering that too. So we can all say we're Nobel Peace Prize recipients. That will look sweet on the CV.

Would we even need jobs? We could live on the prize money alone

JohnMc1

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Would we even need jobs? We could live on the prize money alone

You're right. When should I expect my check?

Scofflaw

poeticseraphim wrote: »

It is intended to parody the way they represent those who view the EU differently. It is equally ridiculous to portray either as war mongerors who distrust others. People are not going to stop liking their neighbours or like them any less if the EU dissolved tomorrow.

I notice you did not mention the poster who said

It is not quite Irony.....but then....

It is irony, I fear, since the xenophobe-eurosceptic correlation is statistically strong. Not, I suspect, because eurosceptics are necessarily xenophobes, but because xenophobes are almost bound to be eurosceptics.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I don't agree with either Europhiles or Eurosceptics.....they both seem mad.

It is the British taxpayer who is the greatest unsung hero of the NI peace process. They have always funded the Army the NI itself community projects and the bulk of the cross border initiatives.

I wonder if that's actually true - apart from the vexed question of whether funding the Army is as positive a step as you take it to be, I can't help but notice that even searching the UK for cross-border funding yields primarily EU-funded initiatives.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ButtimersLaw

I remember the peace prize was won in 2007 by Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their wonderful work in alerting the world to the threat from man-made global warming. Since then, of course, Gore and the IPCC have become so discredited that in many eyes they are little more than objects of ridicule.

It is a little more than ironic that the Prize for Peace is awarded as we see, for example, suicide rates in Ireland at an all time high and rioting on the streets of the EU, both caused in part by the policies of the EU.

Personally, I think it's premature to claim the EU is a harbinger of peace, as there is a good chance that the next years will show the policies of the EU lead to civil unrest and more bloodshed across the EU.

SeanW

Scofflaw wrote: »

It is irony, I fear, since the xenophobe-eurosceptic correlation is statistically strong. Not, I suspect, because eurosceptics are necessarily xenophobes, but because xenophobes are almost bound to be eurosceptics.

Nigel Farage of UKIP often starts his speeches in the UK with "If you've come tonight to hear about how everything in Europe is awful and we should never go beyond the Channel, you've come to the wrong meeting."

It is also common for Euroskeptics (and I increasingly include myself in this) to want a Europe where we trade with each other, talk to each other, go visit each others' countries, work together sometimes. But not this political union where we have an unelected Commission making laws for 500 million people and turning national parliaments (increasingly) into a rubber stamping house for European directives.

This idea that the European Union prevented a modern democratic Germany from trying to crush France etc again but for the advent of the international government in Brussels is both infantile and bizarre, and also a serious insult to the German people.

This award comes at a time when the ill fated Euro project (having imposed on Greece a monetary policy that was always going to end in disaster) is keeping countries like Greece in a death grip, where it is common for Germans to characterise the Greek people as lazy, sponging and useless, while the Greek people now demonise the Germans as Nazis.

It's a joke.

The Bishop!

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's far easier for countries that are meeting regularly across a spectrum of issues both to remember their common interests and discuss their differences.

There's the flip of the coin or counter argument to that obviously.

It's far easier for countries that are meeting regularly across a spectrum of issues both to forget their common interests and ignore their differences in the interests of trade. China comes to mind.

SeanW wrote: »

Nigel Farage of UKIP often starts his speeches in the UK with "If you've come tonight to hear about how everything in Europe is awful and we should never go beyond the Channel, you've come to the wrong meeting."

From my very limited understanding of it, Farange is basically the voice of the City of London. Dressed up as Europhobia for 'the interests of the nation'.

Money talks. Money also walks. So they'll aim to take the U.K out of the whole deal if that's what it takes.

Scofflaw

The Bishop! wrote: »

There's the flip of the coin or counter argument to that obviously.

It's far easier for countries that are meeting regularly across a spectrum of issues both to forget their common interests and ignore their differences in the interests of trade. China comes to mind.

True, that happens too, but I don't think it detracts from the other point - there are many more issues discussed in the EU than trade.

The Bishop! wrote: »

From my very limited understanding of it, Farange is basically the voice of the City of London. Dressed up as Europhobia for 'the interests of the nation'.

Money talks. Money also walks. So they'll aim to take the U.K out of the whole deal if that's what it takes.

Certainly the latter - the Tories are heavily dependent on City money at this stage. But Farage represents more the blue-rinse belt of southern England - the retirement towns - and a generation that never trusted the Continent and remembers the Empire.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum

Scofflaw wrote: »

Certainly the latter - the Tories are heavily dependent on City money at this stage. But Farage represents more the blue-rinse belt of southern England - the retirement towns - and a generation that never trusted the Continent and remembers the Empire.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Much of the problem in the UK was initiall caused by the political classes misselling the EU to the UK electorate. THey were told it was a common market, and the EU even agreed to be called the "Common Market" to add weight to this slight of hand. In Ireland, schoolchildren were told it was for "political and economic Union".

However, we are where we are and the issue for the EU now, it seems to me, is that rather than the rest of Europe coming close and closer together, many across the EU are distrustful of its institutions and see it as a massive bureaucracy which serves itself and not the people of Europe.

While it doesn't really matter what these people think, as the EU is not a democracy and does not have to answer to them, the fact is that parties like UKIP are a very real threat to the EU, and that they seem to be gaining ground in the UK is worrying.

While UKIP are a single issue party, there seems little immediate prospect of them disappearing in the short term, and it might be a mistake to dismiss them as representing an old generation. Many young people right across Europe feel disenfranchised, and which the mroe established political parties talk in a convoluted politico speak, the apparant straight talking of UKIP in the UK is attractive to many of the younger generations. In Ireland we see something similar with Sinn Fein.

Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Much of the problem in the UK was initiall caused by the political classes misselling the EU to the UK electorate. THey were told it was a common market, and the EU even agreed to be called the "Common Market" to add weight to this slight of hand. In Ireland, schoolchildren were told it was for "political and economic Union".

I don't think the "common market" was so-called in a sleight of hand, but the use of it as a synonym for the EEC in the UK was definitely political spin.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

However, we are where we are and the issue for the EU now, it seems to me, is that rather than the rest of Europe coming close and closer together, many across the EU are distrustful of its institutions and see it as a massive bureaucracy which serves itself and not the people of Europe.

True, there is that perception for some, even though it's not a 'massive' bureaucracy by any stretch of the imagination (the UK's Customs and Excise service alone is larger). I don't know whether the particular 'self-serving massive bureaucracy' perception is really a widespread perception across Europe. The lack of trust indicators we do have, and they've ramped up during the crisis in a completely unsurprising way, but, again, whether that's a persistent effect is open to debate - and, of course, it's matched by an equivalent fall in trust of national governments and institutions.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

While it doesn't really matter what these people think, as the EU is not a democracy and does not have to answer to them, the fact is that parties like UKIP are a very real threat to the EU, and that they seem to be gaining ground in the UK is worrying.

What they think does matter, because the EU is both increasingly a democracy in itself and answerable to democratically elected governments. If the trend represented in the UK by UKIP were a general one, we would see equivalent and increasing numbers of eurosceptic MEPs from other countries - but we don't.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

While UKIP are a single issue party, there seems little immediate prospect of them disappearing in the short term, and it might be a mistake to dismiss them as representing an old generation. Many young people right across Europe feel disenfranchised, and which the mroe established political parties talk in a convoluted politico speak, the apparant straight talking of UKIP in the UK is attractive to many of the younger generations. In Ireland we see something similar with Sinn Fein.

Yes...the thing is, though, that it's the role of the young to be discontented with the status quo and with the parties of the establishment, but the young stop being young. The younger generations of today probably still aren't even as radical as the the equivalent age group in the Eighties, never mind the generation before them. Yet here we are, with yesterday's young radicals now doing things like heading the EU Commission.

I'm always wary of drawing lines through a couple of years' worth of trends, and extrapolating them off into the future. It never works out like that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SeanW

Scofflaw wrote: »

If the trend represented in the UK by UKIP were a general one, we would see equivalent and increasing numbers of eurosceptic MEPs from other countries - but we don't.

I suggest you look at UKIPs European parliament group, the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group. UKIP makes up less than half its members and Nigel Farage is only co-president of it.

Yet here we are, with yesterday's young radicals now doing things like heading the EU Commission.

Nothing really surprising about that - José Manuel Barroso is a Maoist who doesn't like democracy very much.

Jos&#233 wrote: »

Decisions taken by the most democratic institutions in the world are very often wrong.

Now he's the dictator sorry "President of the European Commission" that makes laws to be imposed on 500 million people.

SiegfriedsMum

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think the "common market" was so-called in a sleight of hand, but the use of it as a synonym for the EEC in the UK was definitely political spin.

Garrett Fitzgerald used to tell the British that they really didn’t understand what they had signed up to initially, and that if they thought it was to just a common market, then they were misinformed, as everyone else knew it was for political and economic union.

Had Ted Heath and others told that truth to the British electorate, it is unlikely they would have endorsed those aims and Britain then would have been unable to continue with membership. History becomes less relevant the further we get from it, yet in the UK there is still a sizeable opinion that the electorate were lied to by the politicians of the day (shock horror).

Scofflaw wrote: »

The lack of trust indicators we do have, and they've ramped up during the crisis in a completely unsurprising way, but, again, whether that's a persistent effect is open to debate - and, of course, it's matched by an equivalent fall in trust of national governments and institutions.

I agree that it is in times of crises when electorates become more actively involved in politics, and that’s what we have and are witnessing across the EU. We should all welcome more scrutiny of national politicians and institutions by the electorates, as ultimately either governments, whether they be national or supra national, have the authority of the people they make laws for, and raise taxes from, or else they do not and tries to force their will on those people.

Scofflaw wrote: »

What they think does matter, because the EU is both increasingly a democracy in itself and answerable to democratically elected governments. If the trend represented in the UK by UKIP were a general one, we would see equivalent and increasing numbers of eurosceptic MEPs from other countries - but we don't.

Whether the EU is a democracy is for each of us to decide for ourselves. It may be for you, and I, that there is enough democracy in the EU, but it may also be for many others there is not. It may well be for others to have their own (often distrusted) politicians picking the EU politicians is not democratic enough.

Democracy means different things to different people, and Mugabe, for example, claims to have been democratically elected, and many Stalist satellites used to call themselves “the peoples democratic republic of …” and what is important here is that the people of the EU see, and believe, that the EU is democratic. While I have no issues myself, it can’t be denied that many do consider the EU is not democratic, and don’t consider that their politicians choosing the leaders of the EU to be either open, or democratic.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes...the thing is, though, that it's the role of the young to be discontented with the status quo and with the parties of the establishment, but the young stop being young. The younger generations of today probably still aren't even as radical as the the equivalent age group in the Eighties, never mind the generation before them. Yet here we are, with yesterday's young radicals now doing things like heading the EU Commission.

Certainly that has been the view for many years. However, there are signs that it’s the middle aged and even the pensioners across the EU are now much more radical than the younger demographics. As these two groups are usually those who are more likely to vote, and who are more likely to make demands on politicians, it may be that politics is in for a much rougher ride in the coming years than it is used to.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm always wary of drawing lines through a couple of years' worth of trends, and extrapolating them off into the future. It never works out like that.

Many trends do work like that, so to claim they never do seems a brave claim, but I’d certainly agree trends in the political world don’t always develop into a progression which could be accurately predicted.

However, abnormal times often create abnormal happenings politically. So, for example, parties like UKIP or Sinn Fein may well capitalise on growing discontent with other parties (“ah sure they are all the same”), and I’ll bet you they will both do better at their next general elections than they have done in the past.

Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Garrett Fitzgerald used to tell the British that they really didn’t understand what they had signed up to initially, and that if they thought it was to just a common market, then they were misinformed, as everyone else knew it was for political and economic union.

Had Ted Heath and others told that truth to the British electorate, it is unlikely they would have endorsed those aims and Britain then would have been unable to continue with membership. History becomes less relevant the further we get from it, yet in the UK there is still a sizeable opinion that the electorate were lied to by the politicians of the day (shock horror).

Sure.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I agree that it is in times of crises when electorates become more actively involved in politics, and that’s what we have and are witnessing across the EU. We should all welcome more scrutiny of national politicians and institutions by the electorates, as ultimately either governments, whether they be national or supra national, have the authority of the people they make laws for, and raise taxes from, or else they do not and tries to force their will on those people.

Also true.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Whether the EU is a democracy is for each of us to decide for ourselves. It may be for you, and I, that there is enough democracy in the EU, but it may also be for many others there is not. It may well be for others to have their own (often distrusted) politicians picking the EU politicians is not democratic enough.

Democracy means different things to different people, and Mugabe, for example, claims to have been democratically elected, and many Stalist satellites used to call themselves “the peoples democratic republic of …” and what is important here is that the people of the EU see, and believe, that the EU is democratic. While I have no issues myself, it can’t be denied that many do consider the EU is not democratic, and don’t consider that their politicians choosing the leaders of the EU to be either open, or democratic.

Oh, I didn't say it was "democratic enough", but that it was democratic. We clearly do at the very least desperately need more democratic control over the actions of our governments in Europe - it's somewhere we're extremely poorly served both by the national political processes, which haven't really evolved to keep up with the Europeanisation of decision-making, and likewise by the press, who haven't either.

We'd still get more pages on a County Council disagreement than we would on a European Council disagreement in the Irish media. The Germans, for example, are better served by their parliament here, although it's possible a German would disagree.

That the European Council is probably at the same time the most opaque, and the most important as well as most politically interesting, EU institution, doesn't help. It's easy to come away with the impression that the Commission makes EU legislation, the Parliament either accepts or rejects it, and the Council is this shadowy body that somehow exists to the side, which is a very inaccurate reflection of the process and power balance in EU legislation.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Certainly that has been the view for many years. However, there are signs that it’s the middle aged and even the pensioners across the EU are now much more radical than the younger demographics. As these two groups are usually those who are more likely to vote, and who are more likely to make demands on politicians, it may be that politics is in for a much rougher ride in the coming years than it is used to.

Well, we can certainly hope so.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Many trends do work like that, so to claim they never do seems a brave claim, but I’d certainly agree trends in the political world don’t always develop into a progression which could be accurately predicted.

It's hard to think of an example where you really can draw a line though a couple of years and plot it off into the future successfully. I suspect you mean that there are some trends where multi-year data allows you to get a decent ballpark estimate of future conditions, but even those tend to be subject to caveats. In politics, I can't think of any such trends at all.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

However, abnormal times often create abnormal happenings politically. So, for example, parties like UKIP or Sinn Fein may well capitalise on growing discontent with other parties (“ah sure they are all the same”), and I’ll bet you they will both do better at their next general elections than they have done in the past.

On that note, it's interesting to see support for Sinn Fein slipping back to Fianna Fáil in the most recent polls. After all, there's a real sense in which Sinn Fein and UKIP are themselves just more of the same. We'll see, though!

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

SeanW wrote: »

I suggest you look at UKIPs European parliament group, the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group. UKIP makes up less than half its members and Nigel Farage is only co-president of it.

Nothing really surprising about that - José Manuel Barroso is a Maoist who doesn't like democracy very much.

Now he's the dictator sorry "President of the European Commission" that makes laws to be imposed on 500 million people.

FYI, Sean

EU ordinary legislative procedure.

And:

EP procedural rule on electing the President of the European Commission

Both are based on provisions of the EU Treaties the adoption of which the electorate here have been democratically approved in various referenda.

SiegfriedsMum

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oh, I didn't say it was "democratic enough", but that it was democratic. We clearly do at the very least desperately need more democratic control over the actions of our governments in Europe - it's somewhere we're extremely poorly served both by the national political processes, which haven't really evolved to keep up with the Europeanisation of decision-making, and likewise by the press, who haven't either.

We'd still get more pages on a County Council disagreement than we would on a European Council disagreement in the Irish media. The Germans, for example, are better served by their parliament here, although it's possible a German would disagree.

The problem is unlikely to come from those of us who have no real issues with the democratic accountability of the EU, and more likely to come from those who do not consider the EU is democratic.

I don’t think their issue is about the reports of the news media, and more that they consider the institutions are not democratically accountable.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's hard to think of an example where you really can draw a line though a couple of years and plot it off into the future successfully.

I’d have thought, for example, the greening of politics was one issue where it was fairly predictable, but I am not claiming that it was 100% completely predictable.

Scofflaw wrote: »

On that note, it's interesting to see support for Sinn Fein slipping back to Fianna Fáil in the most recent polls. After all, there's a real sense in which Sinn Fein and UKIP are themselves just more of the same. We'll see, though!

I’ll still bet you that both Sinn Fein and UKIP will increase their share of the vote at the next general election in which they are both involved.

Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

The problem is unlikely to come from those of us who have no real issues with the democratic accountability of the EU, and more likely to come from those who do not consider the EU is democratic.

I don’t think their issue is about the reports of the news media, and more that they consider the institutions are not democratically accountable.

True enough. One issue there, though, is that short of directly electing nearly everybody involved, some people will never accept that the institutions are democratically accountable. In Ireland, for example, there's a tendency to presume that the fact that Ministers are elected TDs means the government is democratically accountable, which is in fact completely wrong.

That, in turn, conjures up the possibility of ending up in a situation where the general public understanding of "democratically accountable" could be served, and result in a decrease of real democratic accountability. That may not come about, though, because not every European country has the same (mis)understanding of what democratic accountability actually means.

And then, of course, there are people who only accept that national democracy is really democratic - behind which lies various "blood, soil and nation" conceptions of the demos and other such wriggly things.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I’d have thought, for example, the greening of politics was one issue where it was fairly predictable, but I am not claiming that it was 100% completely predictable.

If one drew a line through, let's say, the fact that the EU Commission first proposed real action on climate change in 1992, one might expect that we would by now have seriously meaningful action on it - so I would, on the whole, say that the trend of talking about it is rather more solid than the trend of ding something about it! And the progress has been far from steady on any environmental issue - instead it has gone forward and backward in fits and starts, depending on how pressing environmental constraints have been.

Which would suggest that the "greening of politics" isn't a political trend as such - it's a response, and a variable one, to the sort of "mechanical" trend for which such forecasting is appropriate, in this case the resource impact of increasing prosperity and population effects.

The popularity of the EU, or of mainstream political parties, on the other hand, represents the popularity of ideas, and I wouldn't care to draw a line through that trend myself.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I’ll still bet you that both Sinn Fein and UKIP will increase their share of the vote at the next general election in which they are both involved.

So noted. We'll see - that's a lot of weeks in politics, after all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum

Scofflaw wrote: »

True enough. One issue there, though, is that short of directly electing nearly everybody involved, some people will never accept that the institutions are democratically accountable.

I agree, and the hope is that the numbers of those who so think don’t increase to worrying numbers. As the good times continue to elude much of the continent, it is entirely possible that this will give rise to all sorts of problems which would not arise in times of prosperity.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The popularity of the EU, or of mainstream political parties, on the other hand, represents the popularity of ideas, and I wouldn't care to draw a line through that trend myself.

That’s spot on, and one thing which is apparent is the very evident lack of ideas both nationally, and in the EU, to get a grip and return to prosperity. In the past that has more often than not given rise to extremism, and one worry might be that extreme ideas will again gain ground. We can all hope that will not happen.

poeticseraphim

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure.



Also true.



Oh, I didn't say it was "democratic enough", but that it was democratic. We clearly do at the very least desperately need more democratic control over the actions of our governments in Europe - it's somewhere we're extremely poorly served both by the national political processes, which haven't really evolved to keep up with the Europeanisation of decision-making, and likewise by the press, who haven't either.

We'd still get more pages on a County Council disagreement than we would on a European Council disagreement in the Irish media. The Germans, for example, are better served by their parliament here, although it's possible a German would disagree.

That the European Council is probably at the same time the most opaque, and the most important as well as most politically interesting, EU institution, doesn't help. It's easy to come away with the impression that the Commission makes EU legislation, the Parliament either accepts or rejects it, and the Council is this shadowy body that somehow exists to the side, which is a very inaccurate reflection of the process and power balance in EU legislation.



Well, we can certainly hope so.



It's hard to think of an example where you really can draw a line though a couple of years and plot it off into the future successfully. I suspect you mean that there are some trends where multi-year data allows you to get a decent ballpark estimate of future conditions, but even those tend to be subject to caveats. In politics, I can't think of any such trends at all.



On that note, it's interesting to see support for Sinn Fein slipping back to Fianna Fáil in the most recent polls. After all, there's a real sense in which Sinn Fein and UKIP are themselves just more of the same. We'll see, though!

cordially,
Scofflaw

In terms of the mechanisms both social and political to empower and inform an electorate having many cultures makes it hardr. I assume language and cultural differences would make this so difficult. Europeanization of political culture at a domestic level requires a distinct culture accross Europe or understanding.

Have you noticed how we baffle our neighbours politically? It is no wonder institutions made up multiculturally baffle Europeans. It is not even possible really for politcians to 'Soap Box it' in a pan European context. Language and lack of sovereign knowledge gets in the way.

The electorate needs to be more educated about Europe...but also how to communicate and move within other political cultures.

The media institutions and social mechanisms to serve a pan European people on a domestic level are only coming about.

It is getting the core of the political culture and institutions of Brussels that is a mind bender.

It is the treaty after treaty approach the fact that it does mean knowing the inetersts of other sovereign nations even when they oppose our own and trying to come to the greatest mutual success.

True balance needs movement...some countries need more rope at times ..then less. Germany has needs we understand ..Spain has needs we understand....

But the spannish electorate cannot ommuniate to the Germans ad visa versa.

My impression is the frustration is not with Germans or Greeks...but actually at wild schemes and the lack of ability to negotiate society to society in the best interests of all.

SeanW

View wrote: »

FYI, Sean

EU ordinary legislative procedure.

And:

EP procedural rule on electing the President of the European Commission

Both are based on provisions of the EU Treaties the adoption of which the electorate here have been democratically approved in various referenda.

Yes, the sole right to propose legislation to the European Parliament lies with the European Commission, currently headed by a Portugese man named Jose Manuel Barroso, or should that be "Chairman Barroso" because he spent his youth leading a Maoist faction in Portugal. Maoism is of course the most extreme form of Communism that it is possible to find, responsible as it was for the deaths of 25,000,000 Chinese people. Surprise, surprise, he doesn't like democracy very much.

Chairman Barroso wrote:

Decisions taken by the most democratic institutions in the world are very often wrong.

You go to great lengths to mention that all of this has been democratically approved ... a claim that may be partly true but demonstrates a questionable grip of reality. With the exception of the last treaty on budgetary rules, every recent treaty proposed to give more power to the E.U. has had to be run in Ireland twice, because we said NO the first time and that was not acceptable so we had to go back and do it again. And even then only because our Constitution demands it, whereas the political classes of every other Member State are able to ram these treaties through into law without ever asking their people.

That includes the European Constitution eh ... "Lisbon Treaty" that was rejected in France and the Netherlands (both the only places that had referenda, and even then only because it was called a constitution). They just put a new title on the same document, called it the Lisbon Treaty to circumvent the need for referenda (except in Ireland) where even our NO wasn't good enough.

European law is imposed on nation states from the top-down, potentially against the wishes of their peoples, by being directives that must be transposed into all national laws, national parliaments can never refuse to transpose a law, and they can never repeal a law that has passed down to them from their European masters.

That's why we have workers being told "you can only work X hours a week," insurers being told "this is how you're going to set insurance premia" and to give a good idea of just how far this thing has descended into a bureaucratic farce, we now have a proposal to impose a uniform code on hairdressers.

You just couldn't make this up!!

Speaking of democracy, I don't recall ever having been asked if I wanted myself and 500 million other Europeans to be ruled by Chairman Barroso. How democratic. And there's a very good reason for that, my response would have been very blunt "Go to hell. P.S. Give me back my country."

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote: »

That's why we have workers being told "you can only work X hours a week," insurers being told "this is how you're going to set insurance premia"...

...government departments being told they can't force women to retire when they get married, mobile phone companies being told they can't rip us off with roaming charges... where will it end?

...and to give a good idea of just how far this thing has descended into a bureaucratic farce, we now have a proposal to impose a uniform code on hairdressers.

Quick tip: when a British newspaper says "the EU wants to do <insert nasty thing here>, it's usually a good idea to do some fact-checking.

You just couldn't make this up!!

And yet, people keep making it up. Go figure.

Speaking of democracy, I don't recall ever having been asked if I wanted myself and 500 million other Europeans to be ruled by Chairman Barroso. How democratic.

Leaving aside the rather bizarre idea that we're being "ruled" by Barroso, I don't remember ever having been asked if I wanted myself and four million other Irish people to be ruled by Brian Cowen. How democratic.

SeanW

I didn't realise that the Irish government would again force women to retire on marriage, but for our rule by Brussels. One of us must have missed something, as Ireland has changed quite a bit since the 1950s. But your right, the supra-national government in Brussels is solely responsible for women not being forced to retire on marriage in Ireland in the 21st century.

In much the same way that the E.U. can take credit for a democratically rebuilt Germany not trying to destroy France again, clearly the German people are insane glazed eyed warmongers who'd elect another mustachio'ed Austrian sign painter and start the whole thing up again but for the subjugation of their country by the E.U.

At least that's what the Nobel committee seems to think, and its' why I now think that organisation has no credibility left (not IMHO that it ever had much in recent years).

SeanW

Leaving aside the rather bizarre idea that we're being "ruled" by Barroso

Chairman Barroso and his gang have the sole and exclusive right to propose legislation to the European Parliament. If passed (a process that excludes national parliaments) such legislation is imposed on the Member States, and there is nothing any such Member State or its national parliament can do about it. Ever. Such as the bizarre rules on insurance premium criteria set to become law in Ireland shortly, despite it being completely insane and having the singular effect of raising insurance costs for most, in some cases all the European people, we're stuck with it and there's nothing whatsoever Dail Eireann or any other national parliament can do, except rubberstamp the legislation.

I don't remember ever having been asked if I wanted myself and four million other Irish people to be ruled by Brian Cowen. How democratic

Fianna Fail contested the 2011 elections. They were pulverised.

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote: »

I didn't realise that the Irish government would again force women to retire on marriage, but for our rule by Brussels. One of us must have missed something, as Ireland has changed quite a bit since the 1950s. But your right, the supra-national government in Brussels is solely responsible for women not being forced to retire on marriage in Ireland in the 21st century.

It's mildly funny to see every positive thing the EU does dismissed with a handwaving "sure we probably would have done that eventually ourselves", especially juxtaposed with hysterical nonsense from the Euroskeptic British press.

In much the same way that the E.U. can take credit for a democratically rebuilt Germany not trying to destroy France again, clearly the German people are insane glazed eyed warmongers who'd elect another mustachio'ed Austrian sign painter and start the whole thing up again but for the subjugation of their country by the E.U.

Yes. That's right. Germans in 1930 were insane glazed-eyed warmongers. That was the problem.

What was that about not being able to make stuff up?

At least that's what the Nobel committee seems to think...

Nope. It's just what you think they think, which isn't remotely close to the same thing.

SeanW wrote: »

Chairman Barroso and his gang have the sole and exclusive right to propose legislation to the European Parliament.

And the legislation they propose is informed by the political direction and priorities of the EU, which are decided by the European Council, whose members are elected by their respective electorates.

Can you cite any examples of the Commission proposing legislation that was completely at odds with the wishes of the Council?

If passed (a process that excludes national parliaments)...

...but includes the European Parliament, which is directly elected by the people of Europe.

...such legislation is imposed on the Member States, and there is nothing any such Member State or its national parliament can do about it. Ever.

I'm sure that's why we regularly see revolts in national parliaments, with riots in the chambers as they react furiously to the diktats that are being handed down from on high.

Except, we don't. Because the national parliaments are implementing legislation that has been agreed by the democratically-elected Council before the Commission proposes it and the democratically-elected Parliament passes it.

The rabid opposition to EU legislation exists mostly in the pages of British tabloids, and most of what they're opposed to, they've made up anyway.

Such as the bizarre rules on insurance premium criteria set to become law in Ireland shortly, despite it being completely insane and having the singular effect of raising insurance costs for most, in some cases all the European people, we're stuck with it and there's nothing whatsoever Dail Eireann or any other national parliament can do, except rubberstamp the legislation.

Are you talking about the fact that insurance companies can no longer discriminate based on sex (as a result of an ECJ ruling)?

How can it raise insurance premiums for everyone? Insurance companies will still have to insure the same risks; they just won't be able to take sex into account when calculating premiums. If the overall risks don't change, why should the overall cost of premiums?

Leaving that aside for a moment, you're complaining about the EU Commission, and then - out of the blue - you're complaining about the ECJ. It's hard to see all this as anything other than a general-purpose anti-Europe diatribe.

Fianna Fail contested the 2011 elections. They were pulverised.

Before the election, our democratically-elected parliament voted for Brian Cowen as Taoiseach, in accordance with our Constitution, which was ratified by popular vote. The democratically-elected European Parliament voted for Barroso as Commission president, in accordance with the EU treaties, which we have ratified through successive popular votes.

What a radical difference.

SeanW

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's mildly funny to see every positive thing the EU does dismissed with a handwaving "sure we probably would have done that eventually ourselves", especially juxtaposed with hysterical nonsense from the Euroskeptic British press. Yes. That's right. Germans in 1930 were insane glazed-eyed warmongers. That was the problem.

No, of course not. But it seems to me to be the position of the Nobel Committee that we as Europeans, living in democratic post-war nation states, would all be out slaughtering each other again but for the advent of the international government of the E.U, despite this organisation not having been fully formed until 1992. IF that is their position, then it is quite bizarre, and frankly a brazen insult to the peoples of Europe.

It's also extremely incredible given what has happened to Greece, a country that has been effectively destroyed because of its involvement with this European Project, a nation that is suffering a man-made economic catastrophe and a humanitarian crisis, that is having much the same effect on Greek politics as similar hardship in Germany had in the 1930s, with the ascent of the Neo-Nazi Golden Dawn, as well as the KKE and Syriza on the left. Greece only now has a stable government because of a pecularity in Greek law that gave New Democracy a 10 seat bonus because it won a plurality, allowing it to form a coalition with Pasok.

And the legislation they propose is informed by the political direction and priorities of the EU, which are decided by the European Council, whose members are elected by their respective electorates.

Multiple layers of abstraction from the people.

I'm sure that's why we regularly see revolts in national parliaments, with riots in the chambers as they react furiously to the diktats that are being handed down from on high.

Considering how many of them go from national offices to European positions, like Herman van Rumpouy and Chairman Mao Tse Barroso, for that and other reasons I don't have much faith in many European national political classes to say boo about EU diktats, even when they have cause to do so.

Except, we don't. Because the national parliaments are implementing legislation that has been agreed by the democratically-elected Council before the Commission proposes it and the democratically-elected Parliament passes it.

But only the Commission can propose legislation - there is not for example a means to have a Private Members Bill, or for any bog-standard MEP to propose legislation, it all has to come through Chairman Barroso and his gang.

Are you talking about the fact that insurance companies can no longer discriminate based on sex (as a result of an ECJ ruling)?

Yes.

How can it raise insurance premiums for everyone? Insurance companies will still have to insure the same risks; they just won't be able to take sex into account when calculating premiums. If the overall risks don't change, why should the overall cost of premiums?

There are two aspects to a common-sense conclusion that this is bad for consumers.
The first is very simple - AFAIK our insurance companies have made it clear that car insurance premiums are going up for women and that's all that's going to happen.

The second point is a bit more nuanced and I don't expect supporters of big government bureacratic meddling to understand, but I'll try anyway. It's the concept of Moral Hazard. That states that if you insulate someone from the true risks of an activity, they will do so more often and in a more risky fashion. We saw it with the "regulated" "guaranteed" banks, and we may see it with young men drivers.
It is generally accepted that young male drivers are one of the biggest, if not THE biggest risk groups on the road for accidents and subsequent insurance payouts.
Assuming for a moment that this ruling would mean lower car insurance costs for men - lower than that demanded by an un-interfered with market - that will mean that young men wishing to drive will be able to afford to do so at a younger age than currently. Assuming also that it is reasonably cost efficient to insure a young woman on a high performace car, e.g. a lightweight car with 1.6 petrol engine, having a very high Power to Weight ratio, then it can be assumed that risky young men will 'benefit' by having easier access (insurance-wise) to these higher PWR cars.

That may have the effect of increasing the number and severity of road accidents, raising insurance payouts, and having the effects of increased road fatalities. In an extreme case, the rise may also provoke national governments to bring in more harsh regulations on motorists in an effort to curb the increases. Something which, given the way Irish road law has gone over the last 10 years or so, is something I would like to avoid given any reasonable possibility to do so.

Leaving that aside for a moment, you're complaining about the EU Commission, and then - out of the blue - you're complaining about the ECJ.

If I understand correctly, the ECJs' job, like any other supreme court, is to arbitrate disputes and make findings relating to European Union law. Remind me again who has the sole right to propose EU law?

It's hard to see all this as anything other than a general-purpose anti-Europe diatribe.

Calling people who favour nation-state democracy "anti-Europe" is both infantile and bizarre - I'm not anti the continent of Europe, indeed I have quite a fondness for the Continent in general, have holidayed there a number of times and would move there in a heartbeat if it meant a better life, what I am skeptical of is the need for this bizarre notion that nation-state democracy is not good enough and we have to be locked into this project of political union.

Before the election, our democratically-elected parliament voted for Brian Cowen as Taoiseach, in accordance with our Constitution, which was ratified by popular vote.

True, but Bertie Ahern was Taoiseach for a part of the last governments' term and we knew that much in advance when we voted for Fianna Fail. A mistake, to be sure, but we knew what we were doing.
Then of course B.A. resigned and Cowen was installed instead. We got a chance to vote on that particular arrangement a short time later and delivered our democratic verdict - we tossed the ****ers out. Enda Kenny was/is the leader of Fine Gael, and again we all knew that very well when we went to the ballot box.

The democratically-elected European Parliament voted for Barroso as Commission president, in accordance with the EU treaties, which we have ratified through successive popular votes.

This is another bizarre statements considering that:

1. Generally speaking, only the Irish people get to vote on further integration into the European Union (or "Europe" as you call it). And even that is only because our constitution demands it.
2. The European political class doesn't take NO for an answer. They wanted a European Constitution, the French and Dutch voted NO. They changed the title to "The Lisbon Treaty" (and I understand that it was a cosmetic change ONLY) specifically so that they could ignore the democratic will of the people of those countries.
3. It's the same in Ireland, with Nice and the European Constitution ... eh "Lisbon" we rejected both treaties until we were told, basically "do it again and come back with the "right" answer."

A claim that this is democratic suggests a very loose interpretation of that term.

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote: »

No, of course not. But it seems to me to be the position of the Nobel Committee that we as Europeans, living in democratic post-war nation states, would all be out slaughtering each other again but for the advent of the international government of the E.U, despite this organisation not having been fully formed until 1992. IF that is their position, then it is quite bizarre, and frankly a brazen insult to the peoples of Europe.

What's bizarre is the inability to distinguish the entirely different notions that (a) the European Union (and its predecessors, all the way back to the Treaty of Rome, barely a decade after the end of the WWII) has been a stabilising influence that has helped its member states focus on co-operation rather than mutual war, and (b) the EU is the only thing keeping otherwise bloodthirsty savages from mutual destruction.

I'm pretty sure the Nobel institute had the former in mind. If you're going to criticise them for believing the latter, the onus is on you to demonstrate that that's what they do, in fact, think.

It's also extremely incredible given what has happened to Greece, a country that has been effectively destroyed because of its involvement with this European Project...

...through absolutely no fault of their own? Poor innocent Greece, rewarded for all their honesty and hard work with a pummelling from those indolent Germans?

Greece is suffering as a result of mismanagement of its economy by its own governments. Sure, those governments used membership of the Euro as an opportunity to multiply the extent of their incompetence by an order of magnitude, but it's telling that, as far as you're concerned, it's Europe's fault that Greece used Europe as a mechanism to intensify its own problems.

Multiple layers of abstraction from the people.

What?

The people elect governments, who negotiate with other governments: one layer of abstraction. The governments appoint Commissioners, who run the EU's civil service: two layers of abstraction. The people directly elect the European Parliament: no layers of abstraction.

Considering how many of them go from national offices to European positions, like Herman van Rumpouy and Chairman Mao Tse Barroso, for that and other reasons I don't have much faith in many European national political classes to say boo about EU diktats, even when they have cause to do so.

[...]

...this bizarre notion that nation-state democracy is not good enough...

So nation-state democracy is the gold standard we should be aspiring to, unless nation-state democracy doesn't object to EU legislation, in which case you can't trust nation-state democracy because nation-state democrats all aspire to high EU office?

I feel like I'm stuck reading the Telegraph again.

There are two aspects to a common-sense conclusion that this is bad for consumers.
The first is very simple - AFAIK our insurance companies have made it clear that car insurance premiums are going up for women and that's all that's going to happen.

But the risk isn't increasing, which means that those insurance companies will take in more money while paying out the same amount - which ignores the effect of competition in the marketplace.

The second point is a bit more nuanced and I don't expect supporters of big government bureacratic meddling to understand, but I'll try anyway. It's the concept of Moral Hazard. That states that if you insulate someone from the true risks of an activity, they will do so more often and in a more risky fashion. We saw it with the "regulated" "guaranteed" banks, and we may see it with young men drivers.
It is generally accepted that young male drivers are one of the biggest, if not THE biggest risk groups on the road for accidents and subsequent insurance payouts.
Assuming for a moment that this ruling would mean lower car insurance costs for men - lower than that demanded by an un-interfered with market - that will mean that young men wishing to drive will be able to afford to do so at a younger age than currently. Assuming also that it is reasonably cost efficient to insure a young woman on a high performace car, e.g. a lightweight car with 1.6 petrol engine, having a very high Power to Weight ratio, then it can be assumed that risky young men will 'benefit' by having easier access (insurance-wise) to these higher PWR cars.

That may have the effect of increasing the number and severity of road accidents, raising insurance payouts, and having the effects of increased road fatalities. In an extreme case, the rise may also provoke national governments to bring in more harsh regulations on motorists in an effort to curb the increases. Something which, given the way Irish road law has gone over the last 10 years or so, is something I would like to avoid given any reasonable possibility to do so.

Sorry, you only get to use one of those arguments.

If insurance premiums rise across the board, then there is no moral hazard. If premiums fall for male drivers, you can't argue that this is financially bad news for everyone.

That aside: the ECJ's ruling is that it's illegal to discriminate between men and women when pricing products you sell to them. Your argument is that it should be legal to discriminate. Would you argue for an insurance company's right to discriminate against black people? Jews? Libertarians?

SeanW

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's bizarre is the inability to distinguish the entirely different notions that (a) the European Union (and its predecessors, all the way back to the Treaty of Rome, barely a decade after the end of the WWII) has been a stabilising influence that has helped its member states focus on co-operation rather than mutual war, and (b) the EU is the only thing keeping otherwise bloodthirsty savages from mutual destruction.

a) is just a nice way of saying b). This idea that post-war democratic nation states were in any danger of starting a new major war is utterly bizarre to anyone who has even the remotest understanding of how the first two world wars started.

Poor innocent Greece, rewarded for all their honesty and hard work with a pummelling from those indolent Germans?

Greece is suffering as a result of mismanagement of its economy by its own governments. Sure, those governments used membership of the Euro as an opportunity to multiply the extent of their incompetence by an order of magnitude, but it's telling that, as far as you're concerned, it's Europe's fault that Greece used Europe as a mechanism to intensify its own problems.

It's popular in some quarters, e.g. boards, the German press, to demonize the Greeks as being stupid, lazy, corrupt, irresponsible blah blah blah. Thing is everyone knew what Greece was like long before this whole thing started - when they had the Drachma their interest rates were very high because noone trusted them.

Where it all went wrong was when the European Union allowed Greece to join the Eurozone. Given that the culture of Greece and the Northern states like Germany, the Netherlands, Finland etc was so raidically different, common sense should have indicated that one currency union was never going to fit the needs of both Greece and Germany. Indeed closer to home, our own housing bubble was fuelled by "historic low interest rates" that were needed for France/Germany at that time, rates that we can hope the Central Bank of Ireland would not have set, or not have been able to set without causing runaway inflation, had we kept the Punt.

There's a reason why individual nation states have their own currencies and that is so that they can set their own interest rates, their own exchange rates, and that these can also be governed in part by perceptions about the country.

So nation-state democracy is the gold standard we should be aspiring to, unless nation-state democracy doesn't object to EU legislation, in which case you can't trust nation-state democracy because nation-state democrats all aspire to high EU office?

I like nation-state democracy, I just don't have much faith in the political class.

risk isn't increasing, which means that those insurance companies will take in more money while paying out the same amount

correct.

If insurance premiums rise across the board, then there is no moral hazard.

also correct.

If premiums fall for male drivers, you can't argue that this is financially bad news for everyone.

I had a feeling that the concept of moral hazard - and the law of unintended consequences - would go over your head, so I'll try again.

If premiums were to fall for male drivers, it would almost certainly be accompanied by a rise in premiums for female drivers. If you make it easier for men to get insured at a younger age, and easier for such young men to acquire and insure high performace cars, and given the risk factors this is likely to increase the number and severity of accidents. This in turn may have the further effect of provoking national governments to increase "safety" related regulation on motorists, which IMO must be avoided at any cost given how much motorists are regulated already.

Given that there would be more insurance payouts it would also mean that costs would have to rise across the board.

Of course, at this time, in Ireland this is not going to happen. But it may happen in other countries and it may happen in Ireland further down the line if inusance companies start seriously competing with each other again.

That aside: the ECJ's ruling is that it's illegal to discriminate between men and women when pricing products you sell to them. Your argument is that it should be legal to discriminate. Would you argue for an insurance company's right to discriminate against black people? Jews? Libertarians?

There is nothing discriminatory about it - on average men (especially young men) cause more insurance payouts, i.e. they are more expensive to insure.

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote: »

a) is just a nice way of saying b). This idea that post-war democratic nation states were in any danger of starting a new major war is utterly bizarre to anyone who has even the remotest understanding of how the first two world wars started.

I love how your argument against anything positive that the EU may have achieved is a sense of unshakeable certainty that all those positive things were inevitable anyway.

It's particularly funny, in the context of two world wars, to announce that a continent that had just emerged from war could never conceivably embark on another one.

It's popular in some quarters, e.g. boards, the German press, to demonize the Greeks as being stupid, lazy, corrupt, irresponsible blah blah blah. Thing is everyone knew what Greece was like long before this whole thing started - when they had the Drachma their interest rates were very high because noone trusted them.

Where it all went wrong was when the European Union allowed Greece to join the Eurozone.

You're basically blaming axe manufacturers for axe murders. Sure, Greece shouldn't have been allowed to join the Euro, but blaming the EU for being lied to by Greece instead of blaming Greece for lying is a bit of a farcical argument.

I like nation-state democracy, I just don't have much faith in the political class.

And you don't see any inherent contradiction between those statements.

I had a feeling that the concept of moral hazard - and the law of unintended consequences - would go over your head, so I'll try again.

If premiums were to fall for male drivers, it would almost certainly be accompanied by a rise in premiums for female drivers. If you make it easier for men to get insured at a younger age, and easier for such young men to acquire and insure high performace cars, and given the risk factors this is likely to increase the number and severity of accidents. This in turn may have the further effect of provoking national governments to increase "safety" related regulation on motorists, which IMO must be avoided at any cost given how much motorists are regulated already.

Given that there would be more insurance payouts it would also mean that costs would have to rise across the board.

So your "unintended consequences" argument is predicated on the assumption that insurance companies will blindly stumble into a situation that leads to them paying out more?

Are you working on the assumption that not only am I too stupid to understand the law of unintended consequences, but all insurance companies are just as stupid? Because that's a pretty strange assumption.

There is nothing discriminatory about it - on average men (especially young men) cause more insurance payouts, i.e. they are more expensive to insure.

So if I conclude that women are more expensive to employ, I can decide not to employ women? Or to pay them less for the same work?

RandomName2

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Sixty years without a major conflict in western and central Europe certainly deserves some recognition and there can be no denying that the European Union has achieved a lot of other good things as well. That is why I welcome this award. The failings of the European Union were not a matter that the Norwegians saw as pertinent to its work of peace-building. Those failings can and maybe eventually will be redressed, which is a far better alternative than wrecking the whole imperfect structure.:cool:

So the EU gets the award and not NATO, even though the latter was principally responsible for there being no conflict between major powers in Europe rather than the ECSC, EEC, EC, EU?

Ah, I suppose it doesn't really matter. The nobel peace prize doesn't have any more standing than a Grammy Award - and I'm not saying that because I'm "anti-Europe" or whatever - after Gerry Adams, Al Gore, and Barack Obama receiving the prize for, respectively, entering politics, self-publicity, and winning the US presidency, the prize has ceased to have any meaning.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

So the EU gets the award and not NATO, even though the latter was principally responsible for there being no conflict between major powers in Europe rather than the ECSC, EEC, EC, EU?

How did NATO actually achieve this?

The case for the EU is straight-forward enough - by providing an alternative forum for dispute resolution, and by reinforcing the interdependence of Europe's economies, as well as providing constant, ongoing and detailed cooperation, the EU made conflict between the European nations less likely.

The case for NATO seems, at best, extremely thin. What did it provide, how did it reduce regional tensions?

cordially,
Scofflaw