General EU discussion thread

Melanchthon

eire4 wrote: »

I was not talking about peace with outside countries or Russia I was talking about peace between the EU countries. The EU has made the idea of for example France and Germany going to war laughable and that is a tremendous accomplishment considering the wars those 2 have fought prior.

There is still 35,000 US troops in Germany , in 1962 it was 270,000 , in 2010 there was also 20,000 Brits (number way down now apparently)

fly_agaric

I think most of the "major all out wars between states" over last 150 years or years or so were to do with European states and proxies fighting each other!
So the fact that European states don't usually fight each other is a major contributor to why these wars are rare (whatever the underlying factors behind why European nation states don't tend to engage in such wars now).

One thing Eurosceptics don't discuss so much is the end game when they halt the awful "ever closer union" or roll back some of the shared sovereignty in the EU. As far as I can gather, the hazy vision is the friendly nation states of Europe all happily getting along, with good new fences erected between them and their neighbours' business (making for good neighbours on the whole).

Its a pipe dream IMO. The process of rolling back the EU (or even just stopping further cooperation/union) is going to be very acrimonious as we see with Brexit already. The end point of it all is going to be a load of damaged and angry countries that are quite unhappy with each other. Not going to war level unhappy, but certainly not particularly friendly/allies any more!
We'll see it small scale when UK finally Brexits - could be quite poisonous in the years to come if the end up with a "no deal" exit.

Bit cynical

fly_agaric wrote: »

Edit: I think you can also see similar things emerging from the fog of smoke filled rooms at the national level when an election throws up an awkward result and coalitions come into being, there is horse trading over manifestos and top jobs etc

True but at the national level, bargaining power is based on the numbers given to the parties by the electorate.

Something similar was also meant to happen with the EU presidency. If a majority wasn't secured by a single party, the parties could come together and form coalitions based on their electoral strength and put forward an agreed candidate. But this time, before this could happen, Merkel and Macron were already bypassing it.

The impression one gets is that democracy is fine so long as the electorate plays ball. If the electorate gets it "wrong" then our betters step in and impose their preferred result.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

True but at the national level, bargaining power is based on the numbers given to the parties by the electorate.

Something similar was also meant to happen with the EU presidency. If a majority wasn't secured by a single party, the parties could come together and form coalitions based on their electoral strength and put forward an agreed candidate. But this time, before this could happen, Merkel and Macron were already bypassing it.

The impression one gets is that democracy is fine so long as the electorate plays ball. If the electorate gets it "wrong" then our betters step in and impose their preferred result.

As you'd guess I would be supportive of the EU.

I don't like what has happened at all but see the fault as being with the member states (and the way the EU institutions don't have much power independent of the states).

The leaders felt it was their perogative to put forward their own candidate(s) when there wasn't a clear result, and they obviously have the power to do that with the current set up. It just seems to me that stopping that happening would need more power at EU level and taking it away from the member states (weakening European Council in the EU?) which is opposite of what Eurosceptics would want I think.

edit: I get impression that the EU leaders (i.e. PMs of the member states etc) did not like this "lead candidate" idea of the European parties to begin with as it diminished their power over the process but if the election result had been clearer there would have been less ability for them to just override it without looking even more undemocratic than they have.

Bit cynical

fly_agaric wrote: »

As you'd guess I would be supportive of the EU.

I don't like what has happened at all but see the fault as being with the member states (and the way the EU institutions don't have much power independent of the states).

The leaders felt it was their perogative to put forward their own candidate(s) when there wasn't a clear result, and they obviously have the power to do that with the current set up. It just seems to me that stopping that happening would need more power at EU level and taking it away from the member states which is opposite of what Eurosceptics would want I think.

However the EU parliament isn't the EU; it is merely one of the institutions which happens to be directly elected. So a shifting of power towards a democratic component does not imply more power transferred to the EU from the member states.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the EU parliament isn't the EU; it is merely one of the institutions which happens to be directly elected. So a shifting of power towards a democratic component does not imply more power transferred to the EU from the member states.

Maybe my language is sloppy - apologies. The Council and Council of Ministers are also the "EU" of course. By "member states" I mean (say for Ireland), Varadkar and the Irish government.

If Varadkar has less (or no) control over exactly who gets to be nominated as Commission president, and that power instead goes to the members of the EU parliament (which is supranational and directly elected by all EU citizens) that looks to me like going further in the direction of "closer union"/federalisation, even if it actually seems more democratic (to me anyway).

I suppose I was using "more power at the EU level" as a shorthand for that redistributing of power away from the leaders.

edit: am giving up for now and heading to sleep!

Bit cynical

fly_agaric wrote: »

Maybe my language is sloppy - apologies. The Council and Council of Ministers are also the "EU" of course. By "member states" I mean (say for Ireland), Varadkar and the Irish government.

If Varadkar has less (or no) control over exactly who gets to be nominated as Commission president, and that power instead goes to the members of the EU parliament (which is supranational and directly elected by all EU citizens) that looks to me like going further in the direction of "closer union"/federalisation, even if actually seems more democratic (to me anyway).

I suppose I was using "more power at the EU level" as a shorthand for that redistributing of power away from the leaders.

However there's another aspect of "more power going to Europe" and that is the transfer of power or remit at the national level to the EU level. What the leaders of the member states might like is more and more power transferred but to have they themselves in ultimate charge of it without the hindrances of other EU institutions.

We might like to think of Merkel, Macron and even Varadkar as "the member states" but it is important to remember that at the national level their power is limited. National parliaments can refuse to enact legislation proposed by them and indeed national parliaments, though rare, can enact legislation against the wishes of the Taoiseach or premier of the country.

eire4

Melanchthon wrote: »

There is still 35,000 US troops in Germany , in 1962 it was 270,000 , in 2010 there was also 20,000 Brits (number way down now apparently)

Kind of off topic or maybe not. But when Britain is officially gone from the EU will that mean those troops will be gone as well?

eire4

Bit cynical wrote: »

In fairness, while there are still unfortunately plenty of armed conflicts, major all-out war between states is very rare these days.

And the EU has been played a massive role in that by making the idea of wars between the European nations a non starter. The EU is far from perfect but it has created peace and greater co-operation between European states and long may it continue to do so as far as I am concerned.

Kermit.de.frog

eire4 wrote: »

And the EU has been played a massive role in that by making the idea of wars between the European nations a non starter. The EU is far from perfect but it has created peace and greater co-operation between European states and long may it continue to do so as far as I am concerned.

That may be fine for the continent but why should that logic apply to Ireland when we have never been involved in any European conflict?

I don't see why we should be brought in to a guilt trip of "all those wars on the continent" to make pro integration arguments.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

However there's another aspect of "more power going to Europe" and that is the transfer of power or remit at the national level to the EU level. What the leaders of the member states might like is more and more power transferred but to have they themselves in ultimate charge of it without the hindrances of other EU institutions.

We might like to think of Merkel, Macron and even Varadkar as "the member states" but it is important to remember that at the national level their power is limited. National parliaments can refuse to enact legislation proposed by them and indeed national parliaments, though rare, can enact legislation against the wishes of the Taoiseach or premier of the country.

I think I see where you are coming from. For me its not a compelling reason to halt or to roll back integration/decrease the powers exercised at the EU level, which is ultimately what Eurosceptics want (the less extreme ones that don't want to dismantle the EU completely/see it fall apart like the UK Brexiteers).

It's more an argument to empower EU institutions in appropriate areas (especially the democratically elected parliament, which in fairness the informal "lead candidate" idea seemed to be trying to do) and reduce powers of the member state governments within the EU structure itself.

CelticRambler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That may be fine for the continent but why should that logic apply to Ireland when we have never been involved in any European conflict?

indeed. I seem to remember from my history lessons in school that Ireland was very much involved in an armed conflict with another European nation until ... oooh, was it the late 19th Century? No, in fact I think it was the late 20th Century. Then, IIRC, the EU helped broker a peace treaty and relations between the two countries improved enormously. Can't for the life of me think of the name of that Agreement, though ... :rolleyes:

eire4

eire4 wrote: »

Kind of off topic or maybe not. But when Britain is officially gone from the EU will that mean those troops will be gone as well?

The troops are based at NATO bases, It has nothing to do with the Eu.

Kermit.de.frog

CelticRambler wrote: »

Then, IIRC, the EU helped broker a peace treaty

Yeah but this is a myth though that has been conjured up in recent years.

The GFA was brokered by Ire/UK with the real help coming from the United States with little if any input at all from the EU.

The EU were not party to the negotiations.

CelticRambler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yeah but this is a myth though that has been conjured up in recent years.

The GFA was brokered by Ire/UK with the real help coming from the United States with little if any input at all from the EU.

The EU were not party to the negotiations.

You're getting fixated on a single date; like Brexit, the signing date of the GFA was the start of something, not an end. The EU has been instrumental in fostering a stable, conflict-free situation through the four successive PEACE initiatives (for a time under the stewardship of a certain Michel Barnier), amongst other work.

Bit cynical

eire4 wrote: »

And the EU has been played a massive role in that by making the idea of wars between the European nations a non starter. The EU is far from perfect but it has created peace and greater co-operation between European states and long may it continue to do so as far as I am concerned.

Sure but there have been wars elsewhere in the first half of the 20th century. The Cino-Japanese war had 20 million civilian deaths, more than double those of WWI. There's been no repeat of wars of that scale in Asia either in the second half of the 20th century. It was not just Europe that changed.

Other factors to consider in Europe: membership of NATO of a large number of European countries; the cold war; exhaustion from the two world wars.

I'm not saying the EU did not play a part but its role is probably exaggerated.

Cookie_Monster

Bit cynical wrote: »

There is no equivalent to this carry on at the level of the nation state.

Not in Ireland but plenty of countries operate list systems in elections.

eire4

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure but there have been wars elsewhere in the first half of the 20th century. The Cino-Japanese war had 20 million civilian deaths, more than double those of WWI. There's been no repeat of wars of that scale in Asia either in the second half of the 20th century. It was not just Europe that changed.

Other factors to consider in Europe: membership of NATO of a large number of European countries; the cold war; exhaustion from the two world wars.

I'm not saying the EU did not play a part but its role is probably exaggerated.

The Vietnam war was on a pretty major scale. No one can say for sure how many died but on the low end estimates put the death toll at about 1.5 million. The Korean war saw a per capita death toll similar to the worst hit countries in World War 2 with the death toll estimated in the region of 1.5 million also. Those are 2 pretty massive wars in Asia that happened in the second half of the 20th century while the EU was continuing to draw Europe closer together and away from war.

eire4

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That may be fine for the continent but why should that logic apply to Ireland when we have never been involved in any European conflict?

I don't see why we should be brought in to a guilt trip of "all those wars on the continent" to make pro integration arguments.

No guilt trip involved at all. Simply making a point as to the positive influence the EU has had overall including us. We may be an island but we are still part of Europe.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

. . . or example, during the recent parliamentary elections, EU Presidential debates were held on television. In Germany spitzenkandidats (lead candidates) were on election posters. After making their decision to elect MEPs, partial consideration for these lead candidates would have informed their voting decision. Then, somewhere in the cloud the decision was made to appoint someone that did not take part in the debates and was not a lead candidate. The electorate was simply told to put up with it.

There is no equivalent to this carry on at the level of the nation state.

Exactly this is happening in the UK right now. It happened in Ireland in 2017. It should also be noted that the reason the EPP spiztenkandidat isn't a shoe-in is because not enough voters voted for the EPP. Their significant losses in the elections meant they didn't have the political clout to ensure their nominee was appointed; that's the direct outcome of the voters' choice not to vote for them.

Contrary to the Daily Mail/Brexiter image of the EU as a powerful, centralised, unaccountable, sinister empire, in the EU power is in fact highly dispersed between the Commission, the Council and the Parliament. There are diverse routes by which Member States and their people can influence the workings of the EU - directly, in elections to the European Parliament or indirectly, through national governments acting in the Council of Ministers.

When power is dispersed in this way, then getting anything done requires dealing, negotiation, even horse-trading between different centres of power. As regards the President of the Commission, essentially the Council of Ministers and the Parliament always have to agree on who it is to be, but the relative influence of each body in forming that agreement can vary according to circumstances. On this occasion, the Parliament has lost some nfluence because the voters have returned a more divided parliament with more equal representation of competing political views. If the Parliament could get behind a leading candidate, it would be difficult for the Council to hold out against them but, as it cannot, this give the Council the opportunity to take the intitiative and propose a candidate to Parliament. Parliament could reject this candidate, of course, but it unlikely to do so unless it can agree on an alternative which, as we have just noted, it can't.

Is this undemocratic? Not fundamentally, for two reasons. First, as noted, it's the choice of the voters to elect a Parliament which is unable to provide majority support for any candidate. Secondly, the influence which ebbs from Parliament accrues to the Council of Ministers, itself made up of democratically-elected governments (which is more than can be said of the Tory party selectorate who will choose the UK's next Prime Minister). We can argue about whether it's efficient, or whether it's transparent, or whether it's the most democratic way of doing things, but I don't think it can be argued that it's fundamentally undemocratic. The voters chose not to endorse any of spitzenkandidat. Surely basic democratic principles should then lead us to conclude that the voters' clearly-expressed views should be heeded, and the spitzenkandidated they rejected should not be appointed?

FreudianSlippers

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Are people forgetting the French and Dutch said no and did not get another vote? The public couldn't be trusted to vote the right way.

Again most likely in my view, unless the course is changed, the EU will end in separation, public disorder and economic pain.

Brexit is the start but it really happens when a Euro member leaves. When one leaves (likely Italy in my opinion) the economic contagion to the other weak countries will be too hard for those countries to take.

It doesn't have to be that way but that's where we are going unfortunately.

On one hand moans about EU superstate and then on the other doesn't respect French and Dutch domestic law? hmmm

Kermit.de.frog

eire4 wrote: »

No guilt trip involved at all. Simply making a point as to the positive influence the EU has had overall including us. We may be an island but we are still part of Europe.

The fact remains we have far more in common historically, economically, politically, emotionally and socially with the UK (leaving) and the United States than we have ever had or ever will have with the continent.

Ergo we are on the wrong side of the tracks and it this is not in our interest in the medium to long term.

sameoldname

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The fact remains we have far more in common historically, economically, politically, emotionally and socially with the UK (leaving) and the United States than we have ever had or ever will have with the continent.

Ergo we are on the wrong side of the tracks and it this is not in our interest in the medium to long term.

Whatever about the UK, we are economically, politically or socially nowhere near the US in practically any sense. We're nowhere near as right wing as the UK for example and they're nothing compared to the States in that regard.

Kermit.de.frog

sameoldname wrote: »

Whatever about the UK, we are economically, politically or socially nowhere near the US in practically any sense. We're nowhere near as right wing as the UK for example and they're nothing compared to the States in that regard.

Which country invests BY FAR the most in our country?

BonnieSituation

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Which country invests BY FAR the most in our country?

And they invest here because we are an English speaking economy within the EU isn't it?

You reckon if we left the EU they'd still do it for the "Old Country".

Professor Moriarty

The old Boston or Berlin argument. It doesn't have to be one or the other - it's a fallacy to suggest otherwise.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Which country invests BY FAR the most in our country?

Investing is not charity or kindness. It is naked self interest like trade.

Jim2007

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Which country invests BY FAR the most in our country?

None is the correct answer. On the other hand US companies invest here and in may other countries when it is in their best interests. It has very little do with anything beyond that and is no indication of common values, ideals or anything else.

reslfj

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The fact remains we have far more in common historically, economically, politically, emotionally and socially with the UK (leaving) and the United States than we have ever had ...

You are nothing but wrong.

• Tribes coming across the Channel and the Irish sea.
• The romans
• English kingdoms
• Vikings and King Kanute
• William I 1066 and French speaking until Henry V - ~year 1400
• The Hundred Years' War from 1337 to 1453 between the House of Plantagenet and mainly the French.
• Henry VIII and England married Spain in 1509 and broke with Rome 25 years later
• 1600-1815 war upon war in Europe with or against continental powers ending with Trafalgar and Waterloo.
• Ireland from Cromwell to independence
• WWI + WWII
• Sick man of Europe
• 45 years of EEC/EU integration with very successful trading and the Single Market.

The loss of the American colonies in 1776 and the time since is nothing that compares with relations in and to Europe except for a total of some 4-6 WW years and maybe the Marshall Plan and NATO.

Lars

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

The voters chose not to endorse any of spitzenkandidat. Surely basic democratic principles should then lead us to conclude that the voters' clearly-expressed views should be heeded, and the spitzenkandidated they rejected should not be appointed?

But it is not really the job of the voter to coordinate with other voters to ensure a dominant majority for a particular candidate. How is the individual voter supposed to know the bulk of other voters will vote? I don't see the failure of the electorate to do this a reason for scrapping the spitzenkandidat system.