The EU

Moriarty

Im intrested to see what peoples opinions are regarding how the EU should be moulded for the future.

For instance, it is hard to read too much into the Nice referendum last year, as many people voted 'no' for reasons other than things to do with the actual referendum (Berty doing things wrong, etc etc. A fair amount of the population was (is?) disinfranchised with the government at the time..).

In the poll, i have asked people to make their feelings known regarding how people generally feel towards europe. Do they favour europe becoming closer and closer, eventually leading to a european superstate, do they feel that the balance of power is just about right now, or have national governments already lost too much power to Brussels? I would also be intrested to hear arguments for however you do decide to vote..

Personally, im looking forward to an EU superstate. I feel it could help countrys like Ireland enourmously. I feel that since this country is so small, everyone knows everyone. It is inherently corrupt as a result, with influential people of all walks of life bypassing the regular rules of society. With an EU state, some of this may be cured...

potlatch

I think there are two things to look out for over the next decades. The first is to make sure the EU doesn't lose its original purpose: to prevent Europe from going to war with itself again. This is all to easily forgotten in the name of prosperity and The Market. It's interdependence and peace, not profit for profit's sake that the EU is built on and we can see today that the market is cracking at the seams.

The second is to be sure that the EU is sympathetic with the emerging significant oppositions to corporate, multinational capitalism. The danger is that the EU will turn into an immovable bureaucracy that will prevent any economic and political reform. It's becoming clear that the reliance on more and more growth and prosperity is replacing more fundamental notions of freedom and democracy which the EU is, supposedly, based on.

What this means is that the various country's economies cannot be centrally controlled beyond some necessary economic convergances. The point is for diversity to exist alongside political and economic cooperation. Each state's parliaments should always be the primary parliament and laws important to the EU as a whole should be passed but should always be accountable, with the decision making process transparent and open.

What I would like to see is more visibility of MEPs and commission members - we should be involved in EU political life as much as our domestic one.

I think the EU must become much more open to popular participation and be much more accountable to its citizens.

Those two aspects, in my opinion, are going to have to be finely balanced and it's going to take a hell of a lot of effort.

billy the squid

I feel that since this country is so small, everyone knows everyone. It is inherently corrupt as a result

I would disagree. There is curruption everywhere even in a country with 300 million like the United States. Take a look at that enron insedent for an example.

Do they favour europe becoming closer and closer, eventually leading to a european superstate

I dont. Europe should not go any further into the politics of different countries in the Union. Every country has different coultures and different morals. Where as people in holland might be in favour one thing it might fly in the face of the Irish people.

I feel it could help countrys like Ireland enourmously.

If we were to give control for (say for example) our financial policies, do you think that our old age and disabled people would receive the level of social welfare they are getting now. As far as i know the social welfare levels in one of the more influential countries britain is lousy.

With an EU state, some of this may be cured...

I think that they would just meet in a hotel in brussels instead of Dublin

davros

I think the Chris Patten answer to this is reasonable: whatever can be done better at Community level should be done at Community level. Everything else should be done at national level.

It's not easy though to apply that to specific cases and opinions will differ.

But some examples [my opinion]:

New medicines should be submitted for approval just once within the Union and not to each country individually. This requires mutual recognition of testing and safety standards.

Our postal service should not be forced open to competition by EU rules. If we want to keep it a regulated monopoly, why not?

Social policy should be decided at national level.

Sand

Hmm Im not sure which option I should vote for. Im pro-europe, but not pro-EU. The EU as it stands is an alliance of nations, not of people. Thats one of the reasons we see competition between states in terms of representation at EU level, especially on the commisson. The EU has become more associated with cheques in the post for farmers.

Personally I favour a federal europe where the european citizen is the building block, not the european nation if you understand what I mean. The European Parliment should become the main decision making body, with the commisson replaced by a senate of sorts , to provide balance between nations, as the Sentate in the US provides a degree of balance between states. Chris Patten has got the right idea when saying we should be practical when deciding who has control over what.

Its amusing that the member states of the EU do all they can to retain the power of the commisson then criticise people for not caring about the EU and not voting for the Parliment.

I oppose the Nice Treaty, not because of the militarisation of the EU as some would put it (I believe a common defence policy is sensible myself), but rather because enlargement of the EU will make the reforms I believe to be nessary all the harder to carry out. Especially as many of the applicant states the EU is just about cheques in the post.

bonkey

Originally posted by davros
I think the Chris Patten answer to this is reasonable: whatever can be done better at Community level should be done at Community level. Everything else should be done at national level.

Absolutely - which is the option not available on the poll....

although, ultimately, the problem then becomes who makes the decision as to what can be done better.....which would ultimately have to be teh EU itself, implying that it had, in essence, total power.

jc

mike65

The EU should look after the big internation issues such as environment, security etc, local government should look after the
issues that effect local everyday living ie the roads, water, sewerage, etc and the national government should have what remains, such as broad fiscal policy.

The great scandal here is at local level where nothing can be done unless money is made availible by a particular minister
who may not be interested if you're in the wrong consituency.
We need a local sales tax for local spending.

Mike.

Sand

Or perhaps local government needs to be beefed up and given a broader range of responsibilities (taking them from the national government) along with powers to impose taxes.

azezil

What i don't like about the Superstate is this idea that for one year one country won't get a say because of the limitation on the size of the council, i don't like the sounds of that.

I'm happy enough with the way it is now.

davros

What i don't like about the Superstate is this idea that for one year one country won't get a say because of the limitation on the size of the council, i don't like the sounds of that.

I think you are talking about limiting the size of the Commission. This will likely happen once the EU is enlarged to include Eastern Europe, regardless of the EU's political structure.

Even then, it won't mean that some countries don't have a say. They are still represented in the Council of Ministers and the Parliament. Also, commissioners don't represent their countries, they represent their indivdual briefs.

Victor

Originally posted by Moriarty
Im intrested to see what peoples opinions are regarding how the EU should be moulded for the future. ..... ..... In the poll, i have asked people to make their feelings known regarding how people generally feel towards europe.

Originally posted by bonkey
Absolutely - which is the option not available on the poll....

What is it about people here creating polls that only show part of the story, presumably to obtain a result that they favour (by only providing extreme alternatives).

I want Europe to do certain things that our government can't do due to size. Three hundred million people can come up with more / better ideas than 4 million. It is in the sphere of common standards that the EU has excelled. Let companies compete on design and cost, not technical merit.

For example, we all use 220V / 50 Hz electricity, but a bunch of differnet electrical plug types. All we are doing is keeping plug / adaptor manufacturers (in the Far East) in business. Eventually, I imagine us agreeing on a single plug / socket standard.

potlatch

Originally by Sand:
The EU as it stands is an alliance of nations, not of people.

Nations are made up of people, it's states that aren't. You're getting your terms, to begin with, very confused.

Sand, first you say you're 'pro-Europe' but not pro-EU. You seem to say you're against against centralised federalism but then you seem to get confused about how the European Parliament and the Commission slots in. Overall, I'm not sure what you're saying at all - are you for or against centralisation?

Are you saying that you want to see an supranational parliament with more power than all the member states put together? Or are you simply saying that you want the European Parliament (of elected representatives from various political blocs) to have more decision-making power than the Commission?

If what you're saying is that the EU needs a more democratic balance in its bureaucracy - even more direct representation and accountability than there is at present - then I'm in agreement with you. If, on the other hand, you're supposing that this doesn't actually involve the problem of centralisation, which I think is exactly what the EU has to avoid, then you should think again.

Hmm Im not sure which option I should vote for. Im pro-europe, but not pro-EU. The EU as it stands is an alliance of nations, not of people. Thats one of the reasons we see competition between states in terms of representation at EU level, especially on the commisson. The EU has become more associated with cheques in the post for farmers.

Could you clarify just exactly what you mean here, Sand?

Moriarty

Originally posted by Victor
What is it about people here creating polls that only show part of the story, presumably to obtain a result that they favour (by only providing extreme alternatives).

Gimme a break. Im not about to list 50 different alternatives. I listed the 3 options i thought most relevant to the question. Why on earth would i create a poll that was intentionally biased? What use would it serve? None.

Sand

Im sorry to have confused you, but ill try again.

Your splitting hairs there with the whole nation state thing. You must have understood what i meant to split hairs, so obviously it cant have been that confusing.

Put bluntly Im in favour of a federal europe. Im in favour of a democratically elected parliment and a senate (to replace the Commisson). Im in favour of the national assemblies retaining a large degree of control over domestic matters, including taxation. The balance of power must shift to the Parliment, it is the clearest exspression of the european peoples mutually held views. The senate can serve as a check of sorts. While Germany for example will have the largest bloc of representives (In any fair system), they should have an equal representation on that Senate. Personally Im not that bothered, but I recognise that some people are terrified unless soemthing like that was put in place.

Im not in favour of the French (centralised) model.

I am pro-europe as I belive in a united Europe. I dont believe the EU is anything other than an club of countries (Or States if you must). The Parliment is emasculated. The Commisson holds the most power, is appointed, and every member wants one of its own on it - which to me indicates that they feel they cant trust a commisson that doenst have one of their nationals on it, or that they lose power somehow.

Thats akin to saying any Irish representitive body, elected or not, must include a member from each and every county in Ireland. Actually given Irelands relative size its like saying there should be a representitive from each and every parish in Ireland.

Surely as long as they get the same amount of parlimentary rep per capita as everyone else they should be happy? The whole vision of a united europe leads to a point where we might be represented by someone who isnt Irish, much as in the US people from Alaska are represented by a (wannabe?) Texan. If thats a problem we should stop wasting time talking about Europe when its the market thats more important.

Im not in favour of Nice because when Poland and co join they sure as hell wont be interested in reforms. All they are there for are the farmer subsidies and the common market to export the products. It will be all the harder to reform the EU at that time.

DadaKopf

More democratic and representative parliament, commission functioning as a typical upper house, decentralisation - all very good suggestions.

If one thing's for sure, the current legislative setup of the EU is somewhere between a dystopian bureaucracy and multinational corporation. This is what has to change and sand's points are very valid.

My only question is: how the hell would that actually happen? And: even if we did get our parliament and senate, how would corporate interests be diminished if not eradicated in the interest of good government?

Chaos-Engine

I didn't vote in the poll as it doen't represent any of my views which is what this thread is about.
I am for a more centralised EU while at the same time describing myself as Euro-cautious and euro-entucistic. With more REAL powers in the parliment and not the commission. I am totally against the idea of a European Superstate as this is what the likes of De Gaul and Hitler wanted. I am more in favour of a federal europe. Wiht a constitution. A europe for the people of europe and not just europes exporting businesses and liberialisation...

The Irish government is currently misrepresenting its own people in europe and is foulish if it think the Irish voted "NO" because of the Neutrality question(however I am aware that many did vote NO due to this). Irish people voted "NO" becuase of the possibility of having no permenant seat on the Commission and the inherent lose of the Veto.

Further Reform MUST take place before the next phase of the enlargement. Not just policies like CAP and ESF, but the structure of the EU institutions themselfs.
The Commission is flaud. It is currently operating like a Board of Directors. Its role must be reshaped. The large states such as Germeny, Italy, Spain, Britain and France all pushed the Nice treaty as a means to limit the powers of the other 10 member states whom have much different needs due to their perpiferal nature. Why not have the Commission reshaped to preform like an upper house such as the Bündestag or a federal parliment(much smaller in size than the parliment).
The Commission should be elected in a similar manner to the Senate in Ireland by Interest groups, politicans, religious groups, doctors, councilers etc. And for everyones sake the commission should be public and not behind closed doors like a globalisation summit or board of directors...
The Parliment is a the way forward for success and democracy. However as currently highlighted in various media corners recently the decisions made in europe are completely out of way of the public. No one knows what is happening and what decisions are being made each day that change their lives. The MEdia itself is partly to blame for this, e.g. there is usually only a half page of articles in the broadsheets on a good day, the news stations don't analysis Europe enough and instead we hear about a local post office being robbed(perhaps this is a conspiracy to pull the wool over ppls eyes).
Coupled with mismangement, inefficency and buracracy the parliment is too big.

The Council of Ministers seems to function well. It is were the real power is and governments can't blame the EU for its decisions as they are a fundemental part of it. Once the process of enlagement takes place and some real reform is undertaken and perhaps a constitution is in place The council should have less control over what decisions are being made the parliment should over take it.
A Constitution would be an ideal opportunity to protect all the people of europe from a corporate style EU. The year before last when the Commission had to resign there was all talk of reform. And what happens. The New Commission is entrusted with this task and all they push for is more control for larger states in the Commission and the rest of the reform ideas like the commission handing over the reins of power to the parliment have vanished...

Tax Harmonisation is a problem for me. Up until 2 weeks ago I was all for it. But after having a very interesting conversation and then locating an article from a leading EU economics institute about what would have happened if Tax harmonisation would have been in place from 1990-1997.
Three countries would see dramatic changes if corporate tax was harmonised through out the EU. These three countries are France, Germany and Ireland. The other 12 seeing minor changes.
Both French and German GDP would increase by 3-4% per year and Irish GDP would suffer by decreasing to the tune of some 5-6% per year. This is due many to the loss of practically all of the Foreign Direct INvestment we have recieved in the last 10 years. Multi-nationals were then asked if tax harmonisation was in place under the period examined 70% would not locate here. This would mean unemployment figures like we had in the 80s(not fun you would all agree).
A for harmonised fiscal policy wouldn't go a miss. Perhaps Bands of Corporate tax. Germany and France with their high taxes could harmonise while smaller countries such as Ireland and Czech Rep could harmonise at much lower rates. This is an issue the eastern european countries and ireland will deffinitly agree on. Imagine Estonia joining the EU with its Corporate tax rates of 0% and then being asked to increase it to the german level of 40% because I can't even see the germans go as low as 20%.
I envisage 3 rates...
The High rate favoured by larger countries: 40%
The Medium rate used by the countries that didn't change much on the survey: 25%
And a Low rate of in the region of 10-15% favoured by Ireland and eastern europe.

Liberialisation is out of control. It is not always in the publics interest. The postal service must stay within state control. Water and waste, these industries are only profit making if the consumer is charged directly and costs are cut(standards might also go in waste for example)....
Charging consumers directly for recycling is wrong. The current idea of weighing ppls bins and invoicing them would be a tragady. It will most likly discourage proper waste managment. Water and Waste need to be state funded and run. Irish Glass Bottle should have been nationalised. It is in the countries interest to have recycling available. NOt everything is for sale. Not everything should be marketed, advertised andsold to the highest bidder.

The Free Market isn' the limit. In order for the euro to be a success people need to be mobile through-out the EU. THe US dollar is a succes as if people can't get a job in one state they go to another. In europe germany's unemployment rate is rising. Ireland has HUGE labour shortages in skilled fields. If germans would travel to jobs in ireland then we have a free market. To establish this mobility the people of europe must feel like various parts of the EU are not foreign and are in fact EU citizens(a constitution will help in this).

Chaos-Engine

Even though that was a huge post I forget to mention that I really like John Brutons idea(probably his only good one).
The President of europe being directly elected by the people of europe. He/She would chair the commission and function like the EU representive such as Prodi. HOwever the EU president must not hold large control such as the USA presidents or French Presidents. MOre like the Irish example but more active and involved.
The process would be much better than the current rotating presidency. Imagine how long it would take for the presidency to get back to your country with 30 members each holding the presidency for a 6 month term. The condidate presidents would have to be presented to the EU parliment(anyone off the street with at least 12 politcal endorsments from accross the politcal spectrum including IBEC, IFA(I know I know), ICTU, Religions etc. The 100 are so various candidates then are presented to the parliment. The parliment then selects 6-12 candidtes with varing political beliefs right, left, reformist, etc. The Candiates must be inherently Pro-Europe as they are not in teh council of ministers

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
I listed the 3 options i thought most relevant to the question. Why on earth would i create a poll that was intentionally biased? What use would it serve? None.

I dont think you created the poll to be deliberately skewed, but the options you listed were "less", "same" and "all".

Generally, I would recommend you juxtapose "less" with "more", not with "all". Alternately, use "none" and "all".

By omitting these balances, you skew the poll, deliberately or otherwise. While it may not have been your intention, you have done it anyway. As for what use it would serve? Well, one could ask why you created a poll at all, if not so that the results could be discussed or used in some way. If the poll is obviously skewed through the omission of balanced options, then the poll is useless.

The discussion, on the other hand, is quite interesting Good topic

jc

Boston

there will never be an eu super state, you think the divisions between north and south here is bad, it isnt a patch on some parts of europe