So how would we reform the EU ?

Piliger

So how would we reform the EU ?

If we support the EU in principle, and want a successful European Union -but we don't want the way it has become this many tentacled behemoth maker of laws that we don't want and that don't suit everyone, then what do people think we should actually change ?

For me, I think the European Parliament is the biggest problem. We rushed into this behemoth of a parliament with this 'vision' that some dreamers had for a pan European Union, when most people want a Union of Individual States.

I think we should totally abolish the EU parliament as it stands today - and replace it with a body made up of a SMALL and equal numbers of representatives from each country. Something like 10 per country. And we should draw up a charter for the new Parliament, where it is directed to limit it's activity to areas of broad agreement across the EU. Not forgetting abolishing the twin city nonsense.

Because the representation would be equal, all countries will feel they have an equal voice and are not being dictated to and dominated by the big countries. More powers could then be passed over to the Parliament by the Council. Because the numbers would be smaller, we would have a far better chance to know who is who, a much smaller budget, and a leaner and faster acting body.

Also abolish the dozens and dozens of ancillary NGOs that have grown like parasites on the body politic of the EU.

I am sure there are lots of other good ideas but those are my main thoughts.

PopePalpatine

The problem with assigning an equal number of MEPs to each state is that the bigger countries (e.g. the UK, France and Germany) will feel hard done by. Malta has about 450,000 people - why should it have the same number of MEPs as Germany, with over 80 million? In your example, an average Maltese MEP represents 45,000 people, but a German one will represent 8 million. There's already some equality among member states in the European Commission, which holds greater power than the European Parliament, as each member state appoints one Commissioner. The European Parliament is meant to represent European citizens on a pan-EU basis, and is intended to be independent from the nations which make up the EU.

There seems to be a lack of knowledge about the European Parliament among the general public. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of Irish people - if asked on the street - couldn't name three of the main voting blocs in the European Parliament, e.g. European Conservatives and Reformists, Socialists & Progressives of Europe, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe etc.

Piliger

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The problem with assigning an equal number of MEPs to each state is that the bigger countries (e.g. the UK, France and Germany) will feel hard done by.

You mean the way smaller countries are feeling aggrieved that they are being dominated and dictated to by the big countries ?

Malta has about 450,000 people - why should it have the same number of MEPs as Germany, with over 80 million? In your example, an average Maltese MEP represents 45,000 people, but a German one will represent 8 million.

Yes. here is no contradiction. The EU is not a country. It is a club and it is perfectly logical that in a club, each member should have an equal say.

There's already some equality among member states in the European Commission, which holds greater power than the European Parliament, as each member state appoints one Commissioner.

So your statement about equality per population is fine for the Commission and not for the Parliament ?

The European Parliament is meant to represent European citizens on a pan-EU basis, and is intended to be independent from the nations which make up the EU.

And yet the problem that most people have is clearly with the Parliament.

There seems to be a lack of knowledge about the European Parliament among the general public. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of Irish people - if asked on the street - couldn't name three of the main voting blocs in the European Parliament, e.g. European Conservatives and Reformists, Socialists & Progressives of Europe, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe etc.

I think it is undeniable that most people know nothing about the EP. The reason is because it is enormous, doesn't represent their interests and yet makes all kinds of regulations and laws.

I am suggesting that this is the core of the problem and education is not the solution. Changing the EP is the solution, or at least part of it.

I don't see a lot of people coming up with any ideas on change, even though they make a lot of noise about wanting change.

househero

America went through civil war before it became United.

We don't want that, if they have a platform to talk (EU Parliament) the risk of Euro war is reduced.

Infact even the USA's states retain freedom from the federal government (far right - corporal punishment, recreational marijuana sales - far left)

One Europe, does not fit all.

The euro votes have shown that the majority of Europeans want more local freedoms. Will they listen?

Piliger

househero wrote: »

America went through civil war before it became United.

We don't want that, if they have a platform to talk (EU Parliament) the risk of Euro war is reduced.

I'm surprised the smaller countries don't team up, we are at a different economic development cycle point to the UK and Germany.

You seem to confuse the EU with the UN. And in the EU there is no desire anywhere to Unite.

The smaller countries have a lot of power in the EU. More than at any time since it's inception. Each country has an equal vote on the Commission and there is nothing Germany and France can do if they choose to disagree with them. However they also have the right to agree with them, and they do that because the policies are mostly right. It doesn't help when a group of the smaller countries screw up their countries so much that they need to go to Germany with a begging bowl, then Germany has, rightly, the right to tell them to get their shot in order.

househero

Piliger wrote: »

You seem to confuse the EU with the UN. And in the EU there is no desire anywhere to Unite.

The smaller countries have a lot of power in the EU. More than at any time since it's inception. Each country has an equal vote on the Commission and there is nothing Germany and France can do if they choose to disagree with them. However they also have the right to agree with them, and they do that because the policies are mostly right. It doesn't help when a group of the smaller countries screw up their countries so much that they need to go to Germany with a begging bowl, then Germany has, rightly, the right to tell them to get their shot in order.

No I'm not. And yes we DO get bullied by the other countries.

No on Lisbon...

Europe: Try again Ireland.

Bad banks. Europe: Take it on as gov debt Ireland.

Spain did not do this. And our GDP to debt ratio would be significantly lower if we were not forced to nationally accept a debt risk that was neither forced on other countries, or our risk to accept.


You are wrong. They DO want a ONE Europe with centralized laws, tax and governance.

The people do not. And voted as such.

househero

Also its common consensus that political and legal governance should be centralized in a single currency area to increase the economic resilience of the area.

Something that I disagree with in principle due to the lack of growth for the aging populations of France, Germany and the UK.

And your admiration of Germany's economy is very much misplaced. During Europe's booming growth post 99, Germany was an economic joke. They just enjoy being frugal so they can benefit a little when everybody else is doing badly, Germans saw the lowest wage growth of any European country. The German people have already paid for this recession in advance.

The German economic model of absolute austerity ONLY works when everyone around you is booming. Even the infallible IMF released a paper admitting that the recommended path of austerity imposed on Ireland as part of our unneeded bailout for privately held and funded banks. Caused more damage than a plan that involved 'doing nothing' which seems like a European wide plan at the moment.

In the most simple form, there are two Europe's. The UK, France, Germany and the rest.

We provide growth. They are supposed to provide us with stability. They failed us.

comongethappy

I'm going to go against the rest of the continent.

I think, though imperfect, the EU is a great thing & I take little issue with its direction.

Changes I would like to see are more in the way of gravy reduction.... Its a costly institution with a vast staff.
I know they have reduced their budget slightly, but I'd like to see it leaner & cheaper.

However, overall I'm not that bothered by it in itself. Im glad it exists.

OS119

Piliger wrote: »

....The EU is not a country. It is a club and it is perfectly logical that in a club, each member should have an equal say....

in a club where each member has an equal say, each member pays the same membership fee...

Germany's contribution to the EU budget is broadly equivilant to everything Ireland spends on Health and Social welfare each year.

if you can come up with a suitable offer, i'm sure Germany, France and the UK would be all ears...

oscarBravo

comongethappy wrote: »

Its a costly institution with a vast staff.

Somewhere around the 33,000 mark is hardly "vast" - how many people work for the US government?

comongethappy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Somewhere around the 33,000 mark is hardly "vast" - how many people work for the US government?

You might have a point if the EU was the only layer of government we had.

And, the staffing levels are a little over 50,000 when all EU agencies are taken into consideration.

I'm sure people ask the question, but I doubt they get the answer, "do we need over 50k staff?"

But as I said, I'm happy with the institution in of itself.
It just being cheaper wouldn't hurt.

meglome

oscarBravo wrote: »

Somewhere around the 33,000 mark is hardly "vast" - how many people work for the US government?

Seemingly there are around 2.7 million civilian employees. According to the d'interwebs anyway. Either way it's an order of magnitude larger than the EU.

I've been listening to the debate in the UK for years now about taking back 'powers' from the EU. I still cannot figure out what that actually means or what these 'powers' really are. I'm genuinely not sure the right wing in Britain actually knows either, even though they are demanding it.

There seems to be an idea that because the right wing in Europe has made gains in these elections we should now do what they want. As I said above I'm not sure they understand what they want or it's implications. Many people have voted for these parties out of fear and that is not a basis for improving anything. I think people forget that having an organisation with so many individual countries involved makes it extremely difficult to quickly change anything. In many ways it's amazing the EU is as good as it is, not perfect but pretty good.

oscarBravo

comongethappy wrote: »

You might have a point if the EU was the only layer of government we had.

The US federal government is a very, very long way from the only layer of government in the US - there is government at the city, county and state level.

And, the staffing levels are a little over 50,000 when all EU agencies are taken into consideration.

So about half the size of the HSE. Hardly "vast".

I'm sure people ask the question, but I doubt they get the answer, "do we need over 50k staff?"

If they got the answer "yes", would they be content?

But as I said, I'm happy with the institution in of itself.
It just being cheaper wouldn't hurt.

By one estimate I've seen, it costs you a little under 70c a day. Could it be cheaper? I don't know. The onus is probably on those who want to see the budget cut to say what they'd stop spending money on.

meglome wrote: »

Seemingly there are around 2.7 million civilian employees. According to the d'interwebs anyway. Either way it's an order of magnitude larger than the EU.

Almost two orders of magnitude, and for a substantially smaller population.

Piliger

So no one thinks there is anything about the EU we need to change ....

oscarBravo

Piliger wrote: »

So no one thinks there is anything about the EU we need to change ....

Speaking for myself, not on the basis of:

Piliger wrote: »

...we don't want the way it has become this many tentacled behemoth maker of laws that we don't want and that don't suit everyone

Not all of us see it that way.

comongethappy

meglome wrote: »

I've been listening to the debate in the UK for years now about taking back 'powers' from the EU. I still cannot figure out what that actually means or what these 'powers' really are. I'm genuinely not sure the right wing in Britain actually knows either, even though they are demanding it.

Looking at how UKIP & the Tories are funded, I imagine those dastardly laws they want eliminated pertain to environmental protection, climate change, workers rights & the ECHR.

I get the vibes that little Englanders will cut off their nose to spite their faces.

Unintended consequences & all that.

Piliger

oscarBravo wrote: »

Speaking for myself, not on the basis of:


Not all of us see it that way.

I agree. However does that mean you feel we should ignore the huge surge of anti EU feeling that is growing every year across the EU and leave the EU institutions untouched ? Just take a chance that they will go away ?

oscarBravo

Piliger wrote: »

I agree. However does that mean you feel we should ignore the huge surge of anti EU feeling that is growing every year across the EU and leave the EU institutions untouched ? Just take a chance that they will go away ?

I'm vehemently opposed to changing things because there's a vague sense that maybe they need to be changed.

If something needs to be changed, identify clearly what's wrong with it, understand the reasons why those things are wrong with it, propose meaningful changes that address those reasons, be prepared to discuss the consequences (including unintended) of those proposals and modify them if necessary, and then work towards getting those changes implemented.

Most people seem to skip all the tedious in-between bits, lurching straight from "I feel there's something wrong with the EU" to "something has to change" without actually bothering to articulate the actual problems they feel exist. It's the unfortunate nature of democracy that such "concerns" need to be addressed, with the unfortunate consequence that the "solutions" to the "problems" are not only almost certain not to be useful; they're much more likely to be downright harmful.

But yay, democracy.

comongethappy

Piliger wrote: »

I agree. However does that mean you feel we should ignore the huge surge of anti EU feeling that is growing every year across the EU and leave the EU institutions untouched ? Just take a chance that they will go away ?

Well, tbh, I don't think any reform is going to placate the anti-EU mob.

The most nihilistic elements seem to just want to see the whole EU burn.
(A glance through the comments on TheJournal.ie under EU articles will demonstrate).

Therefore having reform that just weakens something that had been working well just to appease the unappeasable would be a tragic waste.

Piliger

comongethappy wrote: »

Well, tbh, I don't think any reform is going to placate the anti-EU mob.

The most nihilistic elements seem to just want to see the whole EU burn.
(A glance through the comments on TheJournal.ie under EU articles will demonstrate).

Therefore having reform that just weakens something that had been working well just to appease the unappeasable would be a tragic waste.

Perhaps. I would have thought, personally, that the vast majority of the protest vote has been about how the EU is run, and not about the very existence of it.

oscarBravo

Piliger wrote: »

Perhaps. I would have thought, personally, that the vast majority of the protest vote has been about how the EU is run, and not about the very existence of it.

It's probably fairly evenly divided. In both cases, I'd be fairly sure the core problem is with people's lack of understanding of what the EU is and what it does.

I periodically have conversations with my brother who has lived in England for more than half his life, and with his English wife. Any conversation about the EU is generally euroskeptic, but when I press them for specifics about how the EU negatively impacts on them, all I generally get is either outright Daily Mail euromythology (not that they are Mail readers) or the sort of spin that national governments use to blame the EU for things that they themselves have agreed to.

Piliger

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's probably fairly evenly divided. In both cases, I'd be fairly sure the core problem is with people's lack of understanding of what the EU is and what it does.

I periodically have conversations with my brother who has lived in England for more than half his life, and with his English wife. Any conversation about the EU is generally euroskeptic, but when I press them for specifics about how the EU negatively impacts on them, all I generally get is either outright Daily Mail euromythology (not that they are Mail readers) or the sort of spin that national governments use to blame the EU for things that they themselves have agreed to.

I wouldn't disagree. I find it comical on the British television channels year after year ... whenever issues about health and customer rights and legal rights come up the whole discussions is totally about "why don't we have the rules that they do ?" but then they go back to straight bananas ...

meglome

oscarBravo wrote: »

I periodically have conversations with my brother who has lived in England for more than half his life, and with his English wife. Any conversation about the EU is generally euroskeptic, but when I press them for specifics about how the EU negatively impacts on them, all I generally get is either outright Daily Mail euromythology (not that they are Mail readers) or the sort of spin that national governments use to blame the EU for things that they themselves have agreed to.

It's a real pity that the coverage of the EU in the UK often has a certain scoffing British arrogance attached to it. Slagging off jonny foreigner even if that slagging is not actually based on the facts. The scary thing for the UK is they might well vote to leave the EU based on a pile of bull****. Of course our politicians are not against taking credit for EU policies and blaming them whenever necessary but most Irish people also appreciate we've gained quite a lot from the EU.

Jim2007

comongethappy wrote: »

I'm going to go against the rest of the continent.

I think, though imperfect, the EU is a great thing & I take little issue with its direction.
.

Actually contrary to all the hype, you are in line with most of the continent! The fact is that despite everything the EFD ended up with 5.13% of the vote and 40 seats in 751 seat parliament. And reading some of the French National Front stuff this evening it appears they are even struggling to get the seven national parties required to form a political group within the European Parliment. By contrast the parties supporting an integrated, more social Europe got about 55% of the vote and still hold a majority in the Parliment.

Now while it is true more attention will need to be paid to the voice of the EFD voters espically in the UK and France, it would still take an incredible amount of persuasion to move the majority to the right to an extent that would be acceptable to the EFD type parties.

Scofflaw

Jim2007 wrote: »

Actually contrary to all the hype, you are in line with most of the continent! The fact is that despite everything the EFD ended up with 5.13% of the vote and 40 seats in 751 seat parliament. And reading some of the French National Front stuff this evening it appears they are even struggling to get the seven national parties required to form a political group within the European Parliment. By contrast the parties supporting an integrated, more social Europe got about 55% of the vote and still hold a majority in the Parliment.

Now while it is true more attention will need to be paid to the voice of the EFD voters espically in the UK and France, it would still take an incredible amount of persuasion to move the majority to the right to an extent that would be acceptable to the EFD type parties.

I think it's often the case that when you have, for example, a bigger further-right vote than usual, people start saying "clearly these people need to be catered for" - but if that vote is still a small minority (as it is) with relatively large differences from other voters (as they have), I can't see why that should be done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

househero

meglome wrote: »

Seemingly there are around 2.7 million civilian employees. According to the d'interwebs anyway. Either way it's an order of magnitude larger than the EU.

I've been listening to the debate in the UK for years now about taking back 'powers' from the EU. I still cannot figure out what that actually means or what these 'powers' really are. I'm genuinely not sure the right wing in Britain actually knows either, even though they are demanding it.

There seems to be an idea that because the right wing in Europe has made gains in these elections we should now do what they want. As I said above I'm not sure they understand what they want or it's implications. Many people have voted for these parties out of fear and that is not a basis for improving anything. I think people forget that having an organisation with so many individual countries involved makes it extremely difficult to quickly change anything. In many ways it's amazing the EU is as good as it is, not perfect but pretty good.

England taking back power is referring to the ever decreasing power the royals and UK elites have. And increasing democracy that Europe brings.

Jim2007

househero wrote: »

England taking back power is referring to the ever decreasing power the royals and UK elites have. And increasing democracy that Europe brings.

It is empressive though how the Murdoch press has turned it around so that the average UK citizen thinks that he has less rights and freedoms as a result of the EU.

The UK is actually the most undemocratic country in the EU - it's government can agree to a treaty chance without even consulting Parliment, never mind the people (a good reason for calling them subjects rather than citizens, perhaps).

When comes to the free movement of people, the average UK citizen is unaware that there is no unrestricted right to free movement, there is a right to live AND work in another EU country. And the legislation enabling this right also provides a requirement that a person must achieve economic viability within a certain period or they can be refused permanent residence status. But what you cannot do is treat your citizens better than other EU citizens and that is exactly what the UKIP want to do! So yes they are an extremely racist party.

Piliger

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think it's often the case that when you have, for example, a bigger further-right vote than usual, people start saying "clearly these people need to be catered for" - but if that vote is still a small minority (as it is) with relatively large differences from other voters (as they have), I can't see why that should be done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well for a start UKIP won 27.5 of the votes cast. And Western democracy is not a winner take all philosophy or system.

Scofflaw

Piliger wrote: »

Well for a start UKIP won 27.5 of the votes cast. And Western democracy is not a winner take all philosophy or system.

Sure - winner takes all wouldn't be democracy but the tyranny of the majority. But sometimes what is wanted by a minority is completely incompatible with what is wanted by other minorities, or by the majority. The UK can't leave the EU and stay in it.

As to the size of the UKIP voting minority, 27% is the figure for the euro elections, regarded - particularly in the UK - as a cost-free voting exercise. Their share at the locals was 17%, their share at the last national election also lower. Their electoral and media significance is somewhat out of proportion to their vote share - I'd need to check the numbers, but UKIP's 'swing' is not quite as big as the SF one here, I think. And as a share of the European vote (they are in the European Parliament, after all), they're small indeed - what influence they exercise will be by their effect on the UK government, and it's influence in the EU.

Still, we'll see.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Piliger

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - winner takes all wouldn't be democracy but the tyranny of the majority. But sometimes what is wanted by a minority is completely incompatible with what is wanted by other minorities, or by the majority. The UK can't leave the EU and stay in it.

I agree. However it is pretty clear to everyone that the issue that is driving people to UKIP is immigration. And this is an issue the British have ignored for 50 years despite a deep seated discomfort of a huge proportion of the population. First it brought a huge number from the Indies and the old empire, then from the EU. I personally don't share these feelings but it is a crazy culture that ignores such a widespread dissatisfaction with the scale of this immigration, based on an often elite kind of snobbish political correctness, and now it is starting to bubble over into more extreme action.
Even though I personally have no issue, I can see people's reasons and I think both Britain and Ireland should have been more hands on and proactive when it came to regulating immigration over the years.

meglome

Piliger wrote: »

I agree. However it is pretty clear to everyone that the issue that is driving people to UKIP is immigration. And this is an issue the British have ignored for 50 years despite a deep seated discomfort of a huge proportion of the population. First it brought a huge number from the Indies and the old empire, then from the EU. I personally don't share these feelings but it is a crazy culture that ignores such a widespread dissatisfaction with the scale of this immigration, based on an often elite kind of snobbish political correctness, and now it is starting to bubble over into more extreme action.
Even though I personally have no issue, I can see people's reasons and I think both Britain and Ireland should have been more hands on and proactive when it came to regulating immigration over the years.

The thing that is driving people to UKIP is fear, plain and simple. In hard times over centuries it's always been the same. Blame 'the foreigner' for society's ills, whether you blame it on the Jews or whomever. Immigration could be a problem in the UK but it's certainly not as bad as it's being spun.

Jim2007

Piliger wrote: »

I agree. However does that mean you feel we should ignore the huge surge of anti EU feeling that is growing every year across the EU and leave the EU institutions untouched ? Just take a chance that they will go away ?

At the end of the day in comes down to about 5% of the electorate and 40 seats out of 751, a whimper at best... And turning that into national votes, where it really counts is a very different matter.

Scofflaw

meglome wrote: »

The thing that is driving people to UKIP is fear, plain and simple. In hard times over centuries it's always been the same. Blame 'the foreigner' for society's ills, whether you blame it on the Jews or whomever. Immigration could be a problem in the UK but it's certainly not as bad as it's being spun.

I'm not even sure what problem reducing immigration actually solves. It seems to be taken for granted that "things would be better", but I'm not sure how exactly?

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

comongethappy wrote: »

Well, tbh, I don't think any reform is going to placate the anti-EU mob.

The most nihilistic elements seem to just want to see the whole EU burn.
(A glance through the comments on TheJournal.ie under EU articles will demonstrate).

Therefore having reform that just weakens something that had been working well just to appease the unappeasable would be a tragic waste.

Most people I know who are anti-EU, including myself, simply feel that it has gone too far and needs to be reigned in, with a substantial amount of sovereignty returning from the EU to national parliaments.

Many also feel that the Euro is a disaster of spectacular proportions, was a gigantic mistake, and should be somehow dismantled. The ECB is utterly useless, it's constrained by too many rules preventing it from acting as a proper central bank, while national central banks have lost those powers, meaning that nobody now has them at all. A lot (not all, but a lot) of the mess in Europe could have been mitigated were the ECB not banned from monetary financing and other things ordinary central banks are allowed to do.

comongethappy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Most people I know who are anti-EU, including myself, simply feel that it has gone too far and needs to be reigned in, with a substantial amount of sovereignty returning from the EU to national parliaments.

Example?

Scofflaw

Jim2007 wrote: »

Piliger wrote:

I agree. However does that mean you feel we should ignore the huge surge of anti EU feeling that is growing every year across the EU and leave the EU institutions untouched ? Just take a chance that they will go away ?

At the end of the day in comes down to about 5% of the electorate and 40 seats out of 751, a whimper at best... And turning that into national votes, where it really counts is a very different matter.

I don't think it should be ignored, but I don't think it should be exaggerated either. There has been a rise in anti-EU feeling through the crisis, which is hardly surprising, and more importantly doesn't necessarily mean anything very much in terms of either the long term, or in terms of criticism of the structure or functions of the EU.

That may seem like an outrageous statement, but the fall in trust for the EU is paralleled by even deeper falls in trust for national governments, parliaments, media, etc. All institutions of public governance and/or public information are felt to have failed the public - and I would agree that they did so.

But it's hard to see what a broad condemnation or loss of trust means in terms of the actual functioning of the EU. Sure, eurosceptics will seize on it as having a very specific meaning - whatever they feel is wrong about the EU is clearly the problem. But that's just standard political agenda driven opportunism.

I'm particularly dubious about the idea that repatriation of powers is the solution here, because as far as I can see, the problems people tend to identify with "the EU" in the crisis involve either the ECB (particularly under Trichet), or the EU Member States. Most of our problems stem from Irish government decisions about our banks. Most of what people criticise in the "EU response" was on the one hand the wrangling over bailout loans, and on the other the failure to agree things like eurobonds - where we're not dealing with outright misapprehensions like "the EU made us bail out banks".

The former is not EU, but intergovernmental, and it's hard to see what repatriation of powers could lead to better bailout funds or arrangements. The latter is a failure to have more Europe, not less. And considering the most odious part of the crisis cost for many, the banks - the problem here was that banks that had grown across international borders collapsed back into the arms of national governments. Particularly on the right, I don't see any call for preventing such growth in future (quite the contrary), so what repatriation of powers is going to do to improve rather than exacerbate the situation I'm not sure - it seems rather that transnational regulatory systems are needed to deal with transnational banks.

There's never really a time when the EU couldn't do with reform, but I don't think that panicky "reform" driven by political opportunism riding on the back of a probably temporary wave of dissatisfaction is the best way to go about it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Piliger

The importance of what appears to be a relatively small vote lies in it's impact on National Governments and their need for votes in their next general election. Even a small change in the electorate can have a huge affect and cause a complete change of government. Thus in a democracy the tail often wags the dog, especially if voter turnout sags.
Thus the reform is now urgent and pressing. And it will happen. Even though we in Ireland are overwhelmingly pro EU, we still have issues with somethings and that goes for almost all of the EU countries. So there is plenty of room for reform.
The charge toward closer and closer political integration is over and it is time for pull back. This may just be a temporary phase in the development of the EU, a bit of cold feet as it were. But if we don't do it we risk alienating populations altogether. Better to pull back now and keep the possibility of later closeness than lose it.

Scofflaw

Piliger wrote: »

The importance of what appears to be a relatively small vote lies in it's impact on National Governments and their need for votes in their next general election. Even a small change in the electorate can have a huge affect and cause a complete change of government. Thus in a democracy the tail often wags the dog, especially if voter turnout sags.
Thus the reform is now urgent and pressing. And it will happen. Even though we in Ireland are overwhelmingly pro EU, we still have issues with somethings and that goes for almost all of the EU countries. So there is plenty of room for reform.

That everybody has something they want reformed often prevents anyone opening the discussions at all, because what one government wants changed another government wants kept, and so on.

Piliger wrote: »

The charge toward closer and closer political integration is over and it is time for pull back. This may just be a temporary phase in the development of the EU, a bit of cold feet as it were. But if we don't do it we risk alienating populations altogether. Better to pull back now and keep the possibility of later closeness than lose it.

There's something to be said for that, and I wouldn't argue that integration must always go forwards. Unfortunately, treaty change is a cumbersome process, which makes it difficult for the EU to be switched back and forwards easily in order to make political gestures.

And perhaps that itself is the most necessary reform - but judging by the opposition to the minor revisions procedure in Lisbon, it's the least likely to get through!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Piliger

Scofflaw wrote: »

That everybody has something they want reformed often prevents anyone opening the discussions at all, because what one government wants changed another government wants kept, and so on.

On the contrary, it enables horse trading. It is rare that what one electorate doesn't want, another really really wants. More likely that they just don't care that much but really really want something they care about to change.

There's something to be said for that, and I wouldn't argue that integration must always go forwards. Unfortunately, treaty change is a cumbersome process, which makes it difficult for the EU to be switched back and forwards easily in order to make political gestures.

There are lots of changes that can be made without Treaty changes.

And perhaps that itself is the most necessary reform - but judging by the opposition to the minor revisions procedure in Lisbon, it's the least likely to get through!

Unfortunately as long as national parties AND the voters insist on using EU elections as proxies for their national whinging, the EU will always struggle to reform.

If we really want the EU to reform and work well we have to start treating it more seriously and voting on the issues.

Scofflaw

Piliger wrote: »

On the contrary, it enables horse trading. It is rare that what one electorate doesn't want, another really really wants. More likely that they just don't care that much but really really want something they care about to change.

That leaves me with an explanation for the curious reluctance to engage in treaty change discussions, and you without one.

Piliger wrote: »

There are lots of changes that can be made without Treaty changes.

Such as?

Piliger wrote: »

Unfortunately as long as national parties AND the voters insist on using EU elections as proxies for their national whinging, the EU will always struggle to reform.

If we really want the EU to reform and work well we have to start treating it more seriously and voting on the issues.

True enough. The latest round of EU elections weren't exactly a good omen in that respect, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw