Germany and France to run the EU

Really Interested

recedite wrote: »

Existing ones would be maintained intact (based on the already harmonised EU ones) Future ones could be similarly based on future EU adopted standards, or new harmonised standards could be created and negotiated via a joint technical panel that included the EU (or whatever players are left in the event of the EU's demise).
Joint resources could be administered by individual separate agreements, or by joint bodies set up for the purpose. That is not the same as having one central govt. presiding over everyone.

So the two countries would allow the EU set standards with no input. Currently the UK is part of the "central govt" as is each country.

Again by using joint bodies to manage the resources all your idea is a mini EU.

jm08

recedite wrote: »

Nobody would "be governed by it"; it would be an economic free trade area with joint standards and some sharing of common (eg oceanic) resources, which is what the UK signed up for when it joined the EEC, and similar to what Norway wanted from the EU.

The UK was a founding member of EFTA (along with Norway, Denmark, Sweden & Finland, Portugal & Austria) which it left to join the EEC. After 13 years in this trade association, the UK's economy was a basket case when it joined the EEC in 1973.

recedite

Really Interested wrote: »

your idea is a mini EU.

It would be more like the EEC, which was a mini EU. Up to a certain size, it was able to progress along using "general consensus" type agreements and unanimous decisions.

Nowadays there are so many countries in the EU that nothing can be achieved unanimously. In a way, its a victim of its own success.
So Germany and France have decided that the way forward involves a more centralised form of authority which can impose its will over member states, and which they will effectively control through their dominance.

The first big test of this principle is happening right now; the imposition (or not) of Mandatory Migrant Quotas. The ECJ was supposed to be ruling on the legality of this issue, but it seems to be stalling for time instead. The old "kick the can down the road" strategy. The migrant plan reaches its expiry date in a few weeks time, which is obviously the reason for the stalling. But by avoiding ruling on this issue the ECJ have not really dealt with it. More and more of these disagreements will arise in the future, and the only way to resolve them will be for the central authority to impose its will on anyone who disagrees.

Unfortunately, that is the only way a very large and unified organisation can operate. So IMO the trick is to install yourself at the top of the organisation. But if that is not possible, then get out of it.

Lt Dan

Help!!!! wrote: »

A Polish newspaper has released a leaked document stating the two countries are going to take charge of the EU & turn it into a superstate without consulting Brussels or any other EU country.
So if true Berlin & Paris would tell other EU countries what to do regarding security/refugees etc. Germany has never cared about other smaller EU countries, they only care about their own economy.
If it is true would you be happy for this to happen? Or will it be the end for the EU??
I for one would want to leave, its not what the people of Ireland voted for

Eh, what do you think the summer of 2015 was about? Merkel's solo run to boost her aging population under the pretense of asylum law. Bullying every other EU nation to take in immigrants, regardless of being refugees or not and despite Cameron's warnings. She sought to enforce EU law to deal with this but did not really follow full and proper procedures or prior consultations with the likes of Austria or Hungary

Germany and France have always controlled the agenda. Never understood why Britain moaned, they rarely wanted anything to do with that. Merkel use to have Sarko by her side as equal partner.Hollande lacking a spine, allowed Merkel to do a solo run

Brussels is cool with a Super State , sure Belgium is a nothing country.

Ludwig Heinrich Edler

recedite wrote: »

Britain and Norway have a lot in common; both wanted free trade (an EEC) with the continent but never wanted to be subsumed into the superstate. Some kind of an economic area alliance based on these, and also taking in Ireland Iceland and Denmark would be interesting. It would also control significant wealth in terms of gas, oil and fisheries.

I would not want to see an alliance with our former occupiers, be they English or Viking. As a Catholic, I would favour a Catholic alliance. However, the fact that Catholic countries of southern Europe were as irresponsible as ourselves in controlling debt and maintaining competitiveness, those countries have consequently ruled themselves out. Therefore, Ireland should go it alone in the event of the EU disintegrating.

If Ireland must forge an alliance, I would very much favour Russia. As a matter of interest, can the US government order subsidiaries of American owned multinationals based in Ireland not to trade with Russia? The resurgence of Christian fervor in Russia is so so wonderful and heart warming, and of course the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism are insignificant. Ireland would benefit in more ways than just trade by partnering with Russia. For example, the Russians could give us the Russian language! That would be a prize indeed, to have a world class language that we adopt willingly as opposed to having it forced down our throats like English was. Besides, English will go into terminal decline as the US and the UK seem hellbent out going down the road of socialism and abandoning the good old fashioned capitalist values that made those counties world powers in days gone bye.

_Kaiser_

Ludwig Heinrich Edler wrote: »

I would not want to see an alliance with our former occupiers, be they English or Viking. As a Catholic, I would favour a Catholic alliance. However, the fact that Catholic countries of southern Europe were as irresponsible as ourselves in controlling debt and maintaining competitiveness, those countries have consequently ruled themselves out. Therefore, Ireland should go it alone in the event of the EU disintegrating.

If Ireland must forge an alliance, I would very much favour Russia. As a matter of interest, can the US government order subsidiaries of American owned multinationals based in Ireland not to trade with Russia? The resurgence of Christian fervor in Russia is so so wonderful and heart warming, and of course the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism are insignificant. Ireland would benefit in more ways than just trade by partnering with Russia. For example, the Russians could give us the Russian language! That would be a prize indeed, to have a world class language that we adopt willingly as opposed to having it forced down our throats like English was. Besides, English will go into terminal decline as the US and the UK seem hellbent out going down the road of socialism and abandoning the good old fashioned capitalist values that made those counties world powers in days gone bye.

Alliances based on religious affiliation is frankly a bizarre idea in a (Western) world that is increasingly secular and (justifiably) suspicious of the main ones.

The idea that Ireland would tie up with Russia ignores so many realities, both domestically, and in the region that I don't know where to begin.

And it all seems a reaction to the idea that we might enter into agreements/alliances with our "former oppressors"... and here I thought this stuff was starting to finally die out in this country :rolleyes:

The best outcome of all of this is Europe returns to an EEC style arrangement without the political notions that have always been unworkable in practise, and increasingly so since the Financial and Migrant crisis. If Germany/France try to impose their will on the smaller (eastern) States - Ireland of course will do as it's told! - I think you'll see even more referendums on exiting if not outright (limited) conflict.

Alun

Catholic alliances??? Have I stumbled into an archived copy of boards.ie from the 16th century or something?

recedite

Interesting article here delving into some of the conflicts between the unelected bureaucrats who manage the EU, and the citizenry. Most notably in Hungary.

jm08

recedite wrote: »

Interesting article here delving into some of the conflicts between the unelected bureaucrats who manage the EU, and the citizenry. Most notably in Hungary.

The American who wrote that is an anti-globalist and denies climate change. Both Cameron & Orban actually voted against Juncker for the European Council's nomination as Commission President. The vote for his nomination was 26-2. The European Parliament then voted and elected Juncker 422 for to 250 against.

recedite

jm08 wrote: »

Both Cameron & Orban actually voted against Juncker for the European Council's nomination as Commission President. The vote for his nomination was 26-2.

In some ways its an election. In other ways, its more a selection, through a process of political horse trading.

Really Interested

recedite wrote: »

In some ways its an election. In other ways, its more a selection, through a process of political horse trading.

And that is different to how the UK PM is picked or for that matter the Taoiseach is chosen? May is there at a cost of a billion to the DUP and Leo was elected to te Dail with just over 8000 votes yet he is Taoiseach chosen by in effect FG politicians.

recedite

May felt obliged to go back to the electorate to secure a proper democratic mandate, even though it worked out badly for her.

Leo apparently feels no such obligation. Technically it's all above board and fully legal. As I said, in some ways this kind of thing can be called an election, and in some ways it is really a selection.

Really Interested

recedite wrote: »

May felt obliged to go back to the electorate to secure a proper democratic mandate, even though it worked out badly for her.

Leo apparently feels no such obligation. Technically it's all above board and fully legal. As I said, in some ways this kind of thing can be called an election, and in some ways it is really a selection.

Yup just like a lot of the world so how is that a problem if its in the EU but not at home?

Nody

recedite wrote: »

May felt obliged to go back to the electorate to secure a proper democratic mandate, even though it worked out badly for her.

Leo apparently feels no such obligation. Technically it's all above board and fully legal. As I said, in some ways this kind of thing can be called an election, and in some ways it is really a selection.

May was the last in the cabinet to want a new election and it was only called because Tories had a 20% percentage point lead according to polls; let's not rewrite history here. The farcical campaign by the Tories and May also shows how sure they were it was going to be a rubber stamping exercise for them.

Or did you forget her pledge as a new PM?

“I’m not going to be calling a snap election,” she said shortly after taking office. “I’ve been very clear that I think we need that period of time, that stability – to be able to deal with the issues that the country is facing and have that election in 2020.”

recedite

Really Interested wrote: »

Yup just like a lot of the world so how is that a problem if its in the EU but not at home?

Anyway I never said it was a big problem, I just mentioned that the EU bureaucrats were "unelected" and you took issue with that description.

IMO the EU Commission can be considered as "a civil service" and as such it does not need to be democratically elected, but it should be competent, cost-efficient and honest. It should be populated by experts and technocrats. Not by people who are pledged to Goldman Sachs.

The main problem is the notion that through the introduction of a mechanism for majority voting, the core countries of France and Germany now have the potential to do a bit of horsetrading prior to a council of ministers meeting, which will result in a vote compelling smaller countries to toe their pre-arranged line.
It takes away the choice of other countries to be themselves.
For example the choice of Hungary not to become a multicultural country. Which IMO is a perfectly valid choice; one which they have decided to take in their own interests.

Really Interested

recedite wrote: »

Anyway I never said it was a big problem, I just mentioned that the EU bureaucrats were "unelected" and you took issue with that description.

IMO the EU Commission can be considered as "a civil service" and as such it does not need to be democratically elected, but it should be competent, cost-efficient and honest. It should be populated by experts and technocrats. Not by people who are pledged to Goldman Sachs.

The main problem is the notion that through the introduction of a mechanism for majority voting, the core countries of France and Germany now have the potential to do a bit of horsetrading prior to a council of ministers meeting, which will result in a vote compelling smaller countries to toe their pre-arranged line.
It takes away the choice of other countries to be themselves.
For example the choice of Hungary not to become a multicultural country. Which IMO is a perfectly valid choice; one which they have decided to take in their own interests.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013L0032&from=en

That is one of the two directives dealing with how persons in each state seeking international protection are to be processed. As you will see it does not in any meaningful way apply to Ireland. The Other Directive the Qualifications Directive does. Hungry can opt out of things if it wishes as Ireland and the UK do on occasion, main example by EU law all countries except Ireland the UK must provide a single application procedure for international protection. (it now does)

Hungry as a member is signed up to not only the treaties but the ECHR and the UN convention on Refugees. The problem Hungry faced is it was first in line when the wave came, against all it signed up to it wished to close the border, not just in breach of the directives but the treaties, the ECHR and the UN convention. When Germany tried to help Hungry by trying to get agreement that all of the EU would share the burden and not let Hungary try and process all these people and deport those not in need of Protection, it was roundly attacked.

I have no problem with a country not wanting to be multicultural, but why then sign up to agreements that will effect that stance.

It must also be remembered in 1956 before the EU, when Ireland was a poor country it accepted 541 refugees from Hungry. But dont let facts get in the way, I am happy to carry the name Libtard because in the future I wont have to explain to the following generation that i was like the Irish in the 1930's who sent Europeans back to their death.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/hungary-s-gratitude-to-the-irish-people-1.1018341

recedite

Really Interested wrote: »

Hungry can opt out of things if it wishes..

That principle is in dispute at the moment.

Really Interested wrote: »

Hungry as a member is signed up to not only the treaties but the ECHR and the UN convention on Refugees. The problem Hungry faced is it was first in line when the wave came, against all it signed up to it wished to close the border...

Greece was the "first in line" EU country. Hungary was only the first EU country in line to actually try to sort out the genuine refugees from the migrants at their border. Merkel saw the queues forming and told the Hungarians to just let them all through to Germany, on the basis that she would sort them out later.
Now it turns out she wants a mandatory program to permanently relocate incoming migrants that one country has designated as refugees to other EU countries that would not have designated them as genuine refugees.

Really Interested wrote: »

I have no problem with a country not wanting to be multicultural, but why then sign up to agreements that will effect that stance.

Unfortunately if Merkel gets her way, they will not be allowed to opt out of mandatory migrant quotas, which they never signed up for. They signed up for the post-WW2 1950's interpretation of what constitutes a refugee, as per the UN declaration of human rights, but the 2015 Merkel interpretation is a lot more relaxed.

The situation of the jews turned away from Ireland in the 1930s, which was indeed shameful, cannot be compared at all to the boatloads of migrants now arriving in the EU from all over Africa and Asia. Many of them are actually leaving peaceful countries and entering war zones (eg Libya) in order to link up with the ships taking them on to Europe.

Really Interested

recedite wrote: »

That principle is in dispute at the moment.

Greece was the "first in line" EU country. Hungary was only the first EU country in line to actually try to sort out the genuine refugees from the migrants at their border. Merkel saw the queues forming and told the Hungarians to just let them all through to Germany, on the basis that she would sort them out later.
Now it turns out she wants a mandatory program to permanently relocate incoming migrants that one country has designated as refugees to other EU countries that would not have designated them as genuine refugees.

Unfortunately if Merkel gets her way, they will not be allowed to opt out of mandatory migrant quotas, which they never signed up for. They signed up for the post-WW2 1950's interpretation of what constitutes a refugee, as per the UN declaration of human rights, but the 2015 Merkel interpretation is a lot more relaxed.

The situation of the jews turned away from Ireland in the 1930s, which was indeed shameful, cannot be compared at all to the boatloads of migrants now arriving in the EU from all over Africa and Asia. Many of them are actually leaving peaceful countries and entering war zones (eg Libya) in order to link up with the ships taking them on to Europe.

It is not merkels interpretation,, There is no extension of the UN convention on Refugees. What there is, is the EU concept of Subsidiary protection which was brought in as a minimum standard of what became know in may countries as humanitarian leave. Again this is not new and was negotiated by the members.
An example of the difference, most Syrians do not qualify under UN refugee status, being an ordinary civilian in a war zone does not mean you are a UN refugee, being a gay man in Syria does. Subsidiary Protection brought in to EU Law by the Qualifications Directive in 2004 and 2011. That Directive means a person by virtue of being at real risk from indiscriminate violence is entitled to protection.

Can you link to any source showing the Germany and Germany alone is changing EU law or trying to do so.

View

recedite wrote: »

Now it turns out she wants a mandatory program to permanently relocate incoming migrants that one country has designated as refugees to other EU countries that would not have designated them as genuine refugees.

The resettlement program applies to refugees in Greece & Italy, not those in Germany or any other EU country. Nor is it credible to claim that they would not have been granted refugee status in other EU countries since all EU countries are obliged to apply the same UN (& EU) laws when making such decisions.

recedite wrote: »

Unfortunately if Merkel gets her way, they will not be allowed to opt out of mandatory migrant quotas, which they never signed up for.

It is not up to Merkel. The measure was backed by an overwhelming majority of the member states and is now EU law. And yes, the minority did "sign up for it" since the EU Treaties clearly specify that the EU will develop a common immigration & asylum system. That's been there since the early 90s so the two countries concerned have had years to notice this before joinin the EU.

recedite wrote: »

They signed up for the post-WW2 1950's interpretation of what constitutes a refugee, as per the UN declaration of human rights, but the 2015 Merkel interpretation is a lot more relaxed.

The only interpretation being applied is that of the UN convention on refugees. Neither Germany (or Merkel) or any other EU member favour a different interpretation.

Lastly it should be pointed out that the advocate general of the ECJ has already issued his opinion on the case about the refugee resettlement program. His opinion is not binding but the ECJ usually rules the same way in its judgments. He is of the opinion that the Hungary & Slovakia challenge is completely without foundation. As such they would appear to have little possibility of winning their challenge.

recedite

View wrote: »

Nor is it credible to claim that they would not have been granted refugee status in other EU countries since all EU countries are obliged to apply the same UN (& EU) laws when making such decisions.

Clearly there are different interpretations being used. Some countries, such as Hungary and Britain have tried to protect their borders by allowing in only the genuine refugees. Others such as Greece and Italy, cheerfully let all and sundry in (and them point them them in a northwards direction)

recedite

View wrote: »

He is of the opinion that the Hungary & Slovakia challenge is completely without foundation. As such they would appear to have little possibility of winning their challenge.

If this happens, then the migration issue will only be the first of many issues in which the jackboot of "qualified majority" will be used by the two core EU countries to strip smaller countries of their sovereign choice in social and other policies.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

..."qualified majority" will be used by the two core EU countries...

I think you need to do some reading on the concept of a qualified majority. I'll give you a hint: it involves more than two countries.

Really Interested

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think you need to do some reading on the concept of a qualified majority. I'll give you a hint: it involves more than two countries.

Yes it requires 55% of member states 16 and those states must represent 65% of EU population.

View

recedite wrote: »

Clearly there are different interpretations being used. Some countries, such as Hungary and Britain have tried to protect their borders by allowing in only the genuine refugees. Others such as Greece and Italy, cheerfully let all and sundry in (and them point them them in a northwards direction)

What Hungary (and to a lesser extent Britain) is doing is restricting access to their territories so that people - who may or may not be genuine refugees - cannot lodge applications for asylum. In other words they are rejecting genuine refugees to save on the expense of processing applications for asylum. As such the issue of "interpretation" doesn't arise as they are basically punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty.

View

recedite wrote: »

If this happens, then the migration issue will only be the first of many issues in which the jackboot of "qualified majority" will be used by the two core EU countries to strip smaller countries of their sovereign choice in social and other policies.

QMV has been in use for decades by the EU. Both Hungary & Slovakia would have been aware of this when they joined. If they suddenly have problems with it, they are free to leave.

This is akin to a citizen complaining about how "unfair" democratic decisions are when they find themselves in the minority on an issue, while regarding it as a wonderfully "fair" system when they find themselves in the majority.

Really Interested

View wrote: »

QMV has been in use for decades by the EU. Both Hungary & Slovakia would have been aware of this when they joined. If they suddenly have problems with it, they are free to leave.

This is akin to a citizen complaining about how "unfair" democratic decisions are when they find themselves in the minority on an issue, while regarding it as a wonderfully "fair" system when they find themselves in the majority.

Or indeed people living in Kerry not voting for Leo. Only about 9,000 voters voted leo into the Dail does that make him any less the leader.

recedite

View wrote: »

QMV has been in use for decades by the EU.

Prior to the Lisbon Treaty the normal practice was unanimous decisions. Certainly for anything important, or in any way controversial.

View

recedite wrote: »

Prior to the Lisbon Treaty the normal practice was unanimous decisions. Certainly for anything important, or in any way controversial.

No it wasn't. QMV was routinely operated for decades prior to the Lisbon treaty.

Indeed, QMV exists precisely because the member states accept that there would be a complete logjam in decision making were the EU to operate on the basis that "anything important, or in any way controversial" - i.e. Basically any and every decision - must be made on a unanimous basis. In other words, the member states accepted that they could be out-voted and that would have to accept it when it happens.

Hungary & Slovakia are now challenging that for domestic political reasons and, based on the Advocate General's opinion, are unlikely to succeed.

recedite

Here's a table with all the areas which can be rammed through under QMV since the Lisbon Treaty. Asylum and immigration being two of them.

I agree that unanimity is impractical in a very large organisation, as mentioned earlier. It needs a centralised authority and the ability to ram decisions through. If that's what you want.

The larger more influential countries will never find themselves on the wrong side of a QMJ vote, because they are the ones instigating the votes.

For smaller countries the options are;
1. Suck it up.
2. Leave the EU
3. Petition the larger countries to have the issue moved to a different EU "competency" level. (one which the EU has no competency over, or one of those areas in which a unanimous decision is required)

The problem is, none of these options is very easy or practical.

Really Interested

recedite wrote: »

Here's a table with all the areas which can be rammed through under QMV since the Lisbon Treaty. Asylum and immigration being two of them.

I agree that unanimity is impractical in a very large organisation, as mentioned earlier. It needs a centralised authority and the ability to ram decisions through. If that's what you want.

The larger more influential countries will never find themselves on the wrong side of a QMJ vote, because they are the ones instigating the votes.

For smaller countries the options are;
1. Suck it up.
2. Leave the EU
3. Petition the larger countries to have the issue moved to a different EU "competency" level. (one which the EU has no competency over, or one of those areas in which a unanimous decision is required)

The problem is, none of these options is very easy or practical.

How can 55% of countries with at least 65% of population be ramming something through? There must be abalance between getting things done and being fair, as i can see it it is fair.

As pointed out in Ireland the Procedures Directive does not apply, and the High Court and SC have stated in Judgements because of that and Irelands rubbish system of a bi-refracted applications system serious problems have occurred. Only now does Ireland have a one application system. Madness.