Recent European Elections
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
As part of my continuing trend to actually talk about the rest of the world (it's out there, America! ), I hoped we could chat on the recent EU elections. Apparently th voter turnout is the lowest ever, and more interestingly, was the lowest mostly in the newest EU member states. Across the board (pro or anti-Bush, pro or anti-Iraq, pro or anti-EU) just about every incumbent government seems to have taken a brutal hit. Is the EU becoming another also-ran in the history of european unity? <i>IS</i> there any history of european unity (unless you consider the Pax Romana or Napoelonic Conquests unifying <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> )? Is europe just fooling itself, or is the past 25 years of EU-building still going somewhere? One telling quote from below is the very simple one:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In most countries, the parties in government did worse than opposition or anti-EU movements. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rather than put a lot more spin on this, I'll first just link to a couple EU web articles and let people start making comments.
<a href='http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040614133153.jfvqz3i5' target='_blank'>http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040614133153.jfvqz3i5</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Europeans rebuke ruling parties in EU vote upset
14 June 2004
European leaders battled on Monday to pick themselves up after a string of stunning blows to ruling parties in the first elections for a newly-enlarged European parliament marked by record low turnout.
Voters punished governments which supported the US-led war on Iraq or brought in painful economic reforms, and in the former communist eastern Europe they showed no sympathy for leaders who had guided them into the EU on May 1.
Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, and French President Jacques Chirac all suffered humiliating defeats.
And from Prague to London, eurosceptic parties opposed to the entire process of European integration made considerable gains in the first EU-wide polls since the bloc's historic expansion to take in countries once behind the Iron Curtain.
One of the biggest slaps was for Germany's Schroeder, whose ruling Social Democrats suffered catastrophic losses blamed on anger at their tough economic reform drive.
But the German leader vowed Monday not to be swayed by the results.
"I can only continue with these policies and I want to continue only with these policies," Schroeder said, adding there was "no alternative" to his so-called Agenda 2010 program of social welfare cuts.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the lesson of the EU elections was clear.
"What people in Europe want is to see a European Union working on those issues which the European Union can do better and more effectively than can individual nations. But people also want to see government closer to them."
Turnout was estimated to have slumped to barely 45 percent of the 350 million voters in the bloc's 25 member states -- the lowest since the first elections to the assembly in 1979.
Projections showed barely one-in-four voters in the 10 new states cast their ballots, a worrying sign that the idealism of the historic enlargement is fast evaporating.
European Parliament head Pat Cox -- whose spokesman called the turnout in the EU newcomer states "pathetically low" -- said the eurosceptic surge was a warning for pro-EU political leaders across Europe.
"This is especially important as a wake-up call for those leaders in those states who propose to hold referendum on the constitutional treaty," he said, referring to a historic blueprint for governing the 25-member bloc which EU leaders want to agree this week.
Europe's press agreed.
"The perception that Brussels is increasingly remote, unaccountable, inflexible, arrogant and determined to expand its policy empire is widely shared across a continent," said the broadly eurosceptic Times of London.
Sceptics have argued that the Iraq war, which opened up a chasm-like fault line down the middle of Europe between pro- and anti-war camps, showed the EU was nearing breaking point as it battled to keep its 25 states on the same line.
The world's only transnational polls climaxed on the fourth and final day Sunday with voting in 19 states.
As counting neared a finish, updated projections showed the centre-right bloc in the 732-member parliament -- the European People's Party -- retaining its place as the largest group with 274 seats and the European Socialists in second place with 198.
In Britain, the UK Independence Party, which wants the country to pull out of the EU, made a dramatic breakthrough by taking 12 seats in the 732-member parliament, according to partial results.
The result marked its arrival as a serious political force and a new headache for beleaguered Prime Minister Blair.
The UKIP's seats combined with the 25 won by the opposition Conservatives mean Britain is likely to send to Strasbourg a delegation dominated by eurosceptics.
In France, the opposition Socialist party emerged as clear winners, while Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia party suffered one of its worst-ever performances with less than 21 percent of the vote.
Spain's new Socialist government was one of the few ruling parties to outscore its rivals, along with Greece's conservatives.
In Poland, the EU's largest new member, the opposition Civic Platform crushed the ruling Democratic Alliance (SLD), and anti-EU parties appeared to have captured a quarter of the vote.
A similar pattern emerged in the Czech Republic, where the eurosceptic opposition trounced the ruling Social Democrats.
The EU Parliament has been hobbled by widespread public perception that it is little more than a debating body with little real power.
But it has amassed considerable power in EU decision-making, notably EU budget approval and influence over legislation on trade, environment and consumer affairs.
And it will see its influence increase sharply if EU leaders finally agree on the union's first constitution at this week's summit. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More: <a href='http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040613-083454-3413r' target='_blank'>http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040613-083454-3413r</a>
Even more: <a href='http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040614124337.e7u9qrbg' target='_blank'>http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040614124337.e7u9qrbg</a>
PS: amusingly, the Italians had some the best voter turnout, which is pretty funny if you know anything about Italian democracy and society. But they also chose to vote for two days. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In most countries, the parties in government did worse than opposition or anti-EU movements. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rather than put a lot more spin on this, I'll first just link to a couple EU web articles and let people start making comments.
<a href='http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040614133153.jfvqz3i5' target='_blank'>http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040614133153.jfvqz3i5</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Europeans rebuke ruling parties in EU vote upset
14 June 2004
European leaders battled on Monday to pick themselves up after a string of stunning blows to ruling parties in the first elections for a newly-enlarged European parliament marked by record low turnout.
Voters punished governments which supported the US-led war on Iraq or brought in painful economic reforms, and in the former communist eastern Europe they showed no sympathy for leaders who had guided them into the EU on May 1.
Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, and French President Jacques Chirac all suffered humiliating defeats.
And from Prague to London, eurosceptic parties opposed to the entire process of European integration made considerable gains in the first EU-wide polls since the bloc's historic expansion to take in countries once behind the Iron Curtain.
One of the biggest slaps was for Germany's Schroeder, whose ruling Social Democrats suffered catastrophic losses blamed on anger at their tough economic reform drive.
But the German leader vowed Monday not to be swayed by the results.
"I can only continue with these policies and I want to continue only with these policies," Schroeder said, adding there was "no alternative" to his so-called Agenda 2010 program of social welfare cuts.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the lesson of the EU elections was clear.
"What people in Europe want is to see a European Union working on those issues which the European Union can do better and more effectively than can individual nations. But people also want to see government closer to them."
Turnout was estimated to have slumped to barely 45 percent of the 350 million voters in the bloc's 25 member states -- the lowest since the first elections to the assembly in 1979.
Projections showed barely one-in-four voters in the 10 new states cast their ballots, a worrying sign that the idealism of the historic enlargement is fast evaporating.
European Parliament head Pat Cox -- whose spokesman called the turnout in the EU newcomer states "pathetically low" -- said the eurosceptic surge was a warning for pro-EU political leaders across Europe.
"This is especially important as a wake-up call for those leaders in those states who propose to hold referendum on the constitutional treaty," he said, referring to a historic blueprint for governing the 25-member bloc which EU leaders want to agree this week.
Europe's press agreed.
"The perception that Brussels is increasingly remote, unaccountable, inflexible, arrogant and determined to expand its policy empire is widely shared across a continent," said the broadly eurosceptic Times of London.
Sceptics have argued that the Iraq war, which opened up a chasm-like fault line down the middle of Europe between pro- and anti-war camps, showed the EU was nearing breaking point as it battled to keep its 25 states on the same line.
The world's only transnational polls climaxed on the fourth and final day Sunday with voting in 19 states.
As counting neared a finish, updated projections showed the centre-right bloc in the 732-member parliament -- the European People's Party -- retaining its place as the largest group with 274 seats and the European Socialists in second place with 198.
In Britain, the UK Independence Party, which wants the country to pull out of the EU, made a dramatic breakthrough by taking 12 seats in the 732-member parliament, according to partial results.
The result marked its arrival as a serious political force and a new headache for beleaguered Prime Minister Blair.
The UKIP's seats combined with the 25 won by the opposition Conservatives mean Britain is likely to send to Strasbourg a delegation dominated by eurosceptics.
In France, the opposition Socialist party emerged as clear winners, while Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia party suffered one of its worst-ever performances with less than 21 percent of the vote.
Spain's new Socialist government was one of the few ruling parties to outscore its rivals, along with Greece's conservatives.
In Poland, the EU's largest new member, the opposition Civic Platform crushed the ruling Democratic Alliance (SLD), and anti-EU parties appeared to have captured a quarter of the vote.
A similar pattern emerged in the Czech Republic, where the eurosceptic opposition trounced the ruling Social Democrats.
The EU Parliament has been hobbled by widespread public perception that it is little more than a debating body with little real power.
But it has amassed considerable power in EU decision-making, notably EU budget approval and influence over legislation on trade, environment and consumer affairs.
And it will see its influence increase sharply if EU leaders finally agree on the union's first constitution at this week's summit. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More: <a href='http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040613-083454-3413r' target='_blank'>http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040613-083454-3413r</a>
Even more: <a href='http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040614124337.e7u9qrbg' target='_blank'>http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040614124337.e7u9qrbg</a>
PS: amusingly, the Italians had some the best voter turnout, which is pretty funny if you know anything about Italian democracy and society. But they also chose to vote for two days. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
What do I want to see? Well, personally, I admire Switzerland a lot. Not only are they doing extremely well for themselves, but they're very democratically inclined. If a government tries forcing stupid things on them, they can circle a petition. If it gets enough signatures, they can hold a referendum on the issue. If the referendum goes in favour of the people, the stupid things are barred. I'd like to see something similar here, but that's a different topic, really.
Also, Switzerland is not a member of the EU. They have "associate" status. They do not suffer under its laws (the damn Common Agriculteral Policy, for example), although they do comply with standards when trading. They aren't isolated, but they're not chained, either.
I want England to have the same "associate" status, and cease being a member. The Europhiles would have us believe that this would be a terrible calamity, that we would be cut adrift and die choking on our own vomit.
-----
I'd prefer Europe to be a looser association of trading nations.
Oh come on <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Conservatives did badly in the European elections too, losing a far bigger percent of their vote: -9%. And with a turnout of 38.2% I'm not really surprised the big parties lost out.
I don't think Blair will step down and I don't think Labour will lose the next election. Whether you like it or not there is a lot of protest voting going on and people that have voted one way on a European or local election will vote differently in a general election.
This was a blow to Labour confidence, anyway. Hopefully they'll listen, since none of the other parties are fit to rule, either.
And I didn't vote either, even though I much wanted to. I lost the damn voting-ticket they sent like months before the vote. That was an incredibly dumb move, if you ask me, which no one ever does. How can they assume I could keep a piece of paper safe for that long? I've tried it with money and it never seems to stay a week longer <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
This was a blow to Labour confidence, anyway. Hopefully they'll listen, since none of the other parties are fit to rule, either. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think one of the repercussion of Labour losing as much as they did will be to make Blair listen to his cabinet more rather than being a presidential style PM because I'm sure they could have decided to remove Blair but instead they can use this to make more socialist policies.
I'm not sure how much of his majority he'll lose in the next election, but if it's enough that he would have to form a coalition it could be interesting...
Dread, I think you hit the nail on the head. People who are anti-europe of course vote because they feel so strongly and hence the fringe party's get more votes (UKIP) but the average Joe feels europe is insignificant, far-off, distant and so don't exercise their democratic right.
And pfffft, the Lib Dems are fit to rule! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.iht.com/articles/524996.html' target='_blank'>http://www.iht.com/articles/524996.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BRUSSELS Two years ago, when Poland was rushing to finish the final details of its membership in the European Union, a Polish government minister described a frustrating problem he was having in his negotiations with Brussels.
It was a question about patent protection in the Polish pharmaceutical industry, the kind of arcane rule you might vaguely overhear discussed by lobbyists at a neighboring table in a cramped Brussels pizzeria, but which otherwise stays safely buried from public consciousness.
The Polish minister, Jaroslaw Pietras, said he had learned that the rule was so complex that only one elusive man in the European Commission could negotiate its implementation.
"Whenever we wanted to talk to the Commission they would say, 'This week it is not possible because Mr. Nussbaum is not here,'" Pietras said. I remembered the story about Mr. Nussbaum on Sunday, when results for the European Parliament elections started coming in and it became apparent that record numbers of Europeans were not bothering to vote.
Polling companies offer many explanations for low turnout in elections: good or bad weather, personal contentment or disaffection.
But one factor that repeatedly surfaced in interviews and opinion polls before this election was that the European Union is so complex and baffling to ordinary citizens that many of them have no compelling reason to vote.
A Union that has so many cultural, political and linguistic differences is united in one perverse way: No one understands how it works.
Overall turnout in this election fell to 44.6 percent, down from 63 percent in the first election for the European Parliament in 1979.
Only one in five Poles voted, and turnout in Portugal, Spain and France fell to record lows.
The complexity of the European Union is, of course, not new. Jacques Delors, one of the fathers of Europe's single market, is said to have described the Union as an "unidentified flying political object."
The EU is a strange hybrid, a sort of United Nations, North American Free Trade Agreement and nascent central government all rolled into one. Even EU experts sometimes have trouble explaining how decisions are made in Brussels.
But to many who paid attention, the poor turnout in Sunday's election was particularly disquieting because it came at a time when governments said they were trying to reach out to Europe's citizens by drafting a European constitution.
This document, which is supposed to be finalized at a meeting that will begin in Brussels on Thursday, is meant to give Europeans a sense of participation in the European Union.
"Clearly the debate over the constitution hasn't done that," said Timothy Garton Ash, the head of the European Studies Center at Oxford University.
For Garton Ash, the disconnect between Brussels and European citizens exposes a longer-term worrying trend that goes to the core of what the Union is. He argues in a new book, "Free World: Why a Crisis of the West Reveals the Opportunity of Our Time," that the Union must continue to expand and be more present in the lives of Europeans because its chief mission was and remains to keep the Continent from sliding back into its dark history.
"I don't think that the European Union is going to fall apart like an oil tanker breaking up on the rocks," Garton Ash said. "I think the danger is that it becomes like the Holy Roman Empire, a structure of enormous complexity and ever greater irrelevance."
The risk, he said, is that as the Union gradually becomes less effective and more distant from its citizens, "real politics will take place elsewhere."
Some analysts sought to shrug off the apathy over Sunday's elections, reading the results as a protest vote.
They pointed out that the European Union does not have a monopoly on apathy in the democratic world. American elections, for example, are typically marked by low turnout.
But there is a sense that the Union is in many ways a more fragile flower. In a café in Paris, Berlin or Rome, the notion of the warring tribes of Europe may come up in nothing more than conversation about history - until, perhaps, one is reminded of the Balkans or a country like Moldova. Most Europeans cannot find Moldova on a map, but it is now a few hundred kilometers from the EU's borders and has a nasty, festering secessionist problem aggravated by the presence of a Soviet-era ammunition dump.
It is these issues that insert urgency into the debate over how to tackle Europe's apathy problem.
Mr. Nussbaum's complex rules are just one of many reasons why Europeans don't connect with the European Union.
There are also the facts that the EU is not widely studied in schools, that the media in Europe focus mainly on national issues, and that Europe, as a single political unit, in many ways does not exist.
And there is a communications problem - the habit of Eurocrats in Brussels to speak a language apparently distinct from the Union's 20 official tongues.
An example: "Under the Amsterdam Treaty it was decided to move JHA from the third pillar to the first pillar with an automatic transition clause." (Rough translation: Justice and home affairs issues can be addressed on a European level.)
Or this: "The IGC is currently discussing the passerelle clause on the financial perspectives." (Rough translation: Leaders are discussing a change in methods for voting on the budget.)
Then there is the Brussels blame game.
If politics is the art of taking credit for the good and placing blame for the bad, national politicians have been particularly artful when it comes to the European Union. Brussels gets the blame but rarely the credit. Never mind that a voter driving to a polling place in Greece or Spain or Poland may well have traveled a road built with funding approved by the European Parliament.
Finding the roots of European apathy is not specifically on the agenda for Thursday's meeting of leaders to discuss the constitution. But maybe it should be.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One thing not noted above that I think is important is that it took the US hundreds of years to get 'used to' democracy to the point where people became lazy about voting. After centuries of unbroken democratic and legal elections, we simply started taking them for granted. However, in Europe there is very little democratic tradition, especially in the modern era; most new EU nations have been democracies for barely a decade. Many old EU nations for barely half a century. There is not yet any real excuse for not caring about the elections, unless what is being voted on is truly not gaining any interest from the electorate. Right now the EU is *barely* a trade federation, and that may not last past one good row with the French over cheese and wine imports or something similarly silly. To think that it has come any closer to a United States of Europe is looking to be very unlikely. Which does show terrible lack of forethought for all involved (government, teachers, bureaucrats, and the people), if there is a true desire to end 3 millenia of intracontinental warfare, bigotry, nationalism, trade battles, poverty, etc.
Edit: fixed boneheaded internal double post. Thanks Snidely <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
At the risk of sounding naive, how would a united Europe (supposing such a thing was possible) solve those problems? It would just provide an easier target to blame for all those things.
Good article, though. So good that it <i>deserves</i> to be pasted twice into your post. ;P
My theory is that the more people understand each other and experience each other, the harder it is to dehumanize them and hate them. America has become more tolerant and comfortable with its diversity every year since its inception. I think this is partly due to our pioneering of ever more powerful communications, transportation, and media. Things that were all made easier by our diverse states being part of one larger nation that everyone was free to travel through, trade with, talk too, etc. In 225 years we have had one internal war - Europe has had at least 100, with two of them being the largest and most catastrophic conflicts in human history. America has had one great depression - Europe has had dozens (and if you count eastern Europe, you could argue they were in one for the better part of the last hundred years). I definitely think that unification of a people is better than dozens of disparate countries all with different languages, laws, societal norms, etc, <b>IF</b> your goal is minimize different types of conflict. To back to an earlier point, the times when Europe was most overall peaceful (internally; not at its borders, naturally) was when it was under the umbrella of a unified state, like Rome. Whether that is good or bad is not my point - my point is to your question of minimizing conflict.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Good article, though. So good that it <i>deserves</i> to be pasted twice into your post. ;P <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doh! Fixed. Thanks! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As for the Romans - they didn't try to govern every detail of the provinces' lives. They let them keep their customs; they even joined in, in some cases, adopting their gods into their own pantheon. "You pay us taxes and respect the emperor, and we'll let you live in peace and keep you safe from your enemies."
Brussels likes to stick their oar in, though. Why should they care that shopkeepers in Mansfield or Norwich weigh their goods in pounds rather than kilos? And why should they care about how bent the bananas are, as long as they taste all right? And let's not even talk about the effect on our fishing and farming industries, or that the most important sections are not democratically elected. Who have been the last three British commissioners in Brussels? Neil Kinnock (Labour politician rejected by the electorate), Chris Patten (Conservative politician rejected by the electorate), Roy Jenkins (Social Democrat politician rejected by the electorate). Lookin' good!
Do you know why the EU's accounts have never been signed off by its own accountants? Because they are riddled with fraud and corruption. It's true that fraud and corruption can happen in national governments - but they get voted out. If Bush is presiding over a corrupt government, <i>you can vote him out</i>. Can you tell me how I might vote out Romano Prodi? Answer? We can't. He was chosen by a self-serving cabal of vested interests without any reference to the electorate. (Just like the commissioners mentioned above.)
I didn't mean to go on this long. Congratulations if you're still reading. (:
Oh, and one more thing:
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I definitely think that unification of a people is better than dozens of disparate countries all with different languages, laws, societal norms, etc, IF your goal is minimize different types of conflict.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm no expert on America, but from what I know, the various states all have their own state laws which they defend fiercely from federal interference. You might be allowed to do something in New England which you might not be able to in Texas, or vice versa. And societal norms? A cornfed, midwestern yokel has grown up in a different society to a self-satisfied coastal city sharpie.
By the way, the EU has no one language. Each law has to be translated into each language - and now, there are so many different languages, the system is having difficulties. The Tower of Babel just ain't in it. There have been diplomatic misunderstandings over bad translations - even laws being misinterpreted so implemented differently in one country than in another. That's not unity, that's chaos.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you know why the EU's accounts have never been signed off by its own accountants? Because they are riddled with fraud and corruption. It's true that fraud and corruption can happen in national governments - but they get voted out. If Bush is presiding over a corrupt government, you can vote him out. Can you tell me how I might vote out Romano Prodi? Answer? We can't. He was chosen by a self-serving cabal of vested interests without any reference to the electorate. (Just like the commissioners mentioned above.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I was not really aware of this stuff. Can you link me to some info, I'm very interested in reading more. Are these the brothers of the corrupt UN officials that were pocketing Saddam's kickbacks in order to oppose the war? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm no expert on America, but from what I know, the various states all have their own state laws which they defend fiercely from federal interference. You might be allowed to do something in New England which you might not be able to in Texas, or vice versa. And societal norms? A cornfed, midwestern yokel has grown up in a different society to a self-satisfied coastal city sharpie.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sort of. States can make all the laws they want. However, when they conflict with the US Constitution, they are invalidated and null and void. Since the EU cannot agree on a Constitution, there is not yet an option for this in Europe. And since the bigger EU nations like France and Germany keep trying to manipulate the constitution to the expense of newer, less powerful nations, we'll have to wait a bit to see what shakes out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way, the EU has no one language<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From what Nem told me, it actually has 3 official 'governmental' languages - English, French, and German. Which is apparently ignored. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Standardizing on one language is going to be a big step to take in order to make this work efficiently and inexpensively, and as long as you have the French holding so much power in the EU, it ain't gonna happen.
Yes, those are the three 'governmental' languages, but unfortunately, I had to learn that this makes little difference as even simple memos are required to be translated in <i>every</i> language official in a member state.
Anyway, to postpone the discussion of the EUs merits into the lower part of this post, I'd first like to make a few comments regarding this election (by the way, some pretty damn good articles, Mons).
I'm not very particular towards interpreting this election as the herald of an impending European demise, for two reasons:
First, many areas, among them my own Baden-W?rtemberg, held numerous local elections alongside the one for the European Parliament, and had no significantly higher participation due to it. We're currently simply stuck in a climate of general political apathy for a lack of choices - Snidleys remark about 'none of the other parties being fit to rule, either' can pretty much be generalized to every western democracy I'm aware of.
Second, we're looking at an election for the European Parliament, which still carries the nimbus of being a de-fact influenceless retirement program for overaged national politicans. This <i>does</i> change - the Parliaments agreement is nowadays required for a rough 80% of the regulations passed - but the reputation carries on. Add to this the particularily shallow campaigns of most parties, and you lull the electorate into a feeling of innecessity.
I did by the way vote (and helped the heavily pro-EU Greens to one of their best results ever), but my choice was that of the smallest evil.
--
Now, on to the actual point of the EU. I'll have to admit that I got a lot more bitter since the last discussion we've had on the topic.
This has much to do with the so-called 'discussion' of the European constitution. The fact of the matter is that it does just not take place. And by this, I don't mean to say that it isn't passionately discussed in the streets, I mean to say that literally nobody speaks of it. No German politican of any kind of prominence, opposition or coalition, and a great deal of them took influence in the creation process, even found it necessary to make a public statement regarding the constitutions content, although Germanys political landscape is almost completely pro-EU. I pride myself in being politically quite literate and try to stay so by reading up, but I have no idea what that constitution is going to look like.
And this although the EUs regulations can often create quite emotional reactions - in other words, 'the people', whoever that may be, could be interested in the reorganization of the EU, would someone spark their interest. I'm coming to realize that nobody wants to.
Make no mistake, a European union is in my opinion direly necessary, and that not to keep us from 'plunging back into an age of violence' or something comparably dramatic, but simply because no European nation could hope for economic survival on its own, and because experience shows that a strictly economic union will create a wild-gowing bureaucracy with the results Snidley and Mons' second article illustrated quite vividly.
What I am however coming to realize is that the EUs main obstacle are not the various anti-EU movements, whichs aims of less bureaucratic intervention and higher popular influence are often comparable to those of the pro-EU movements, are not the cultural divides that riddle the continent, as they do in many cases not go deeper than what we experience <i>within</i> single functioning states, but the national political elites, be they right or left, conservative, liberal, socialistic, social democratic, green, or communistic.
It is not in the interest of any national profilic politican to make the EUs constructive reorganization - or any constructive aspect of the EU - subject of large public attention, because that would sooner or later lead to a reduction of the power of the structures in which <i>they</i> have influence and can hope to progress in. It <i>is</i> in their interest to 'out-source' uncomfortable decision to the EU - best example here is the ruinous agrar policy the EU promoted for a long time (it was thankfully reformed quite a bit recently), and which no national politician could've stood up for for fear of his re-election.
To clarify, I do not assume some sort of 'anti-EU conspriacy' here. Nothing of this is concious, nothing of this is planned. It is simply the case that any politician - any human, really - will try to retain his power. And if a politicain has reached a position of significant power in a national system, and is then asked to 'scarifice' a portion of this power to other instances he has no influence into, he will liably not do so. Thus, the EUs most important decisions continue to require an unanimous vote from all member states, for example. It'll take a great crisis to force the national institutions to end this reflexive blockade.
I'm in a bit of a rush, I'm afraid, so I'll have to make it brief.
MonsE - I've gathered most of this stuff from a magasine called Private Eye; sadly, they don't make the reports section available on their website, just the humour section. I know that it has appeared in the mainstream press a few times, though - I'll post links later. I have <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/08/nbook08.xml#4' target='_blank'>one</a> here from The Sunday Telegraph. I'll (hopefully) also find the story of a Belgian reporter who had his office ransacked and computer confiscated by police; he had exposed corruption at the highest levels. <i>Quis custodiet ipsos custodes</i>?
Nem0 - I agree with you by and large, but I'm not sure that a purely economic relationship would crumble. Why should it? No-one's suggesting that each nation needs to achieve self-sufficiency. We'd continue to trade as we do with the rest of the world. Would Europe stop selling to the UK if we became associates only? I doubt it; they need our market.
Then again, English farmers are still waiting for compensation over France burning our lambs at the Channel Ports, in protest at their import, and simply blockading the ports to stop our goods going in. Even when the dispute has nothing to do with us. So much for free trade. Maybe we should just trade with the rest of Europe...
Gone on for longer than I meant to. I'm going to be late. ):
I'll post replies after I re-read Nem's piece once more and follow this interesting Snidely link.
For those that didn't follow the link, it's very brief and reproduced here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->EU accounting does not add up
A senior London accountant, Christopher Arkell, draws my attention to the startling implications of the charges by Marta Andreason, the European Commission's chief accountant, that the EU does not operate by internationally recognised accounting rules. Miss Andreason, sacked by Neil Kinnock, the commission vice-president, for her attempt at whistle-blowing, confirms that the EU does not even employ double-entry book-keeping.
Mr Arkell points out that, under stringent official rules, the UK government may not give taxpayers' money to any organisation that does not produce certified accounts drawn up under recognised standards.
Therefore in no way does the EU, whose accounts are so irregular that the EU Court of Auditors has consistently refused to approve them, qualify as a proper and legal recipient of taxpayers' money, and under normal rules, the UK would be obliged to demand the return of the ?150 billion it has handed to Brussels since 1973.
No doubt this suggestion would be dismissed as absurd, frivolous and irrelevant. But can Gordon Brown please explain why the normal rules do not apply?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Worthy of a topic unto itself! Yikes!
<a href='http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/02/1028157846023.html?oneclick=true' target='_blank'>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/02/...l?oneclick=true</a>
<a href='http://www.accountancyage.com/News/1137056' target='_blank'>http://www.accountancyage.com/News/1137056</a>
Interestingly, note the dates of the articles: 2 years after the whistleblower sounded, nothing has been done. Far more than apathetic voters, this internal lack of due diligence could be what brings the EU down comepletely someday.
Anyhoo, back to Nem's points:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, those are the three 'governmental' languages, but unfortunately, I had to learn that this makes little difference as even simple memos are required to be translated in every language official in a member state.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How many billions of euros does this cost every year? It's ridiculous! And easily overcome by having everyone speak a standard language, or at least their native tongue and a standard language as well. The Dutch, Germans, and Scandanavians appear to have little trouble with the concept, after all...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I did by the way vote (and helped the heavily pro-EU Greens to one of their best results ever), but my choice was that of the smallest evil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would have pegged you for a Christian Democrat. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Here comes the next Maggie Thatcher, this time in jackboots! Ok, I admit the real Maggie Thatcher probably wore a dominatrix outfit on the weekends...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, on to the actual point of the EU. I'll have to admit that I got a lot more bitter since the last discussion we've had on the topic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exxxxxcellent, Smithers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To clarify, I do not assume some sort of 'anti-EU conspriacy' here. Nothing of this is concious, nothing of this is planned. It is simply the case that any politician - any human, really - will try to retain his power. And if a politicain has reached a position of significant power in a national system, and is then asked to 'scarifice' a portion of this power to other instances he has no influence into, he will liably not do so. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting. So you are saying that the EU's crises over elections, the Constitution, and its basic foundations boil down to a lack of moral fiber? I am inclined to agree with your theory. The big question is, how do you get around that? America's founding fathers had many axes to grind which forced compromises here and there during the formation of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, but they ultimately showed a vision of democracy and freedom never seen before or since (even if not always lived up to in practice in the US, it has always been a goal to be strived for and every year comes closer). They were similar in background to these EU politicians as well, I don't doubt; wealthy, powerful men in their own right. Perhaps the modern man is morally incapable of holding power and using it responsibly? I don't believe it, but others might - the EU's example is certainly not backing me up.
While were on the topic, explain to me again why modeling the EU Constitution and governmental layout after that of the US is being so obviously avoided? It handles just about every dumb mistake the last EU Constituional convention made and argued over and subsequently vetoed, and its proven in that it worked for 215 years. The distribution of state power, the supreme court, state's rights, the bill of rights, etc. Is it the 'not invented here' syndrome of redesigning the wheel? Maybe something for another topic...
And before comepletley blaming the politicians for not covering the EU elections, Constitution, etc., might we ask what axe the Press has to grind? After all, if they want something to be news, it will be news. If not, it won't.
Maybe I'm forcing myself to compare it to the U.S. Federal system. The only stories I can find talk about laws being signed (after being passed around to hundereds of representatives) that do little more than decide obscure trade agreements between very specific parties. To me, this is the kind of thing that a more localized Governor of counties or provinces would handle.
Again, I'm having trouble finding any valuable articles regarding the value of the current EU system so I might be missing the big picture. So far though, it sounds like bureaucracy strictly for the sake of bureaucracy (/me spits out the bad taste).
I did come across an interesting Gallup poll: <a href='http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=12043' target='_blank'>American know little about the EU</a>. I'm not sure what Gallup was trying to prove here but it's amusing really considering the level of interest coming from EU members voting public.
EDIT: Grrrrr! MonsE posted before I could finish. /me shakes fist!
I was thinking about that "obvious" avoidance of mirroring the U.S. system. But I'd like to note that the U.S. system was far from original. The Founding Fathers merely took what they thought were the better parts of previous systems and applyed some glue. Sprinkle in a little yellow journalism, some civil war, and political assasinations and Whamo! U.S. Politics!
<a href='http://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm' target='_blank'>Official EU page</a>
<a href='http://www.eubusiness.com/' target='_blank'>EU Business</a>
<a href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=ascii&q=eu' target='_blank'>Googles news searching EU</a>
After that, you're on your own. It almost <b>does</b> seem conspiratorial in how hard it is to find info on the subject. Of course, that worked well for plenty of oppressive governments that worked their way into power from the shadows. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Ein europa, ein volk, ein union! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> I kid, Nem, I kid!
First, let's get rid of the Civ-terms here. Nations don't trade with each other, nations merely regulated the level of trade that is allowed to occur between their borders <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Currently, Great Britain is part of the joint open market of the EU. This means that all trade within the EU is essentially being treated like trade within a single nation - there are no toll barriers limiting it. (I assume you are aware of much of what I'm saying here. Bear with me, I need to prepare the ground a bit before coming to my arguments.) This big trade zone has its disadvantages - triple-A-industry is for example capable of moving its facilities into the nation with the lowest production costs and then 'exporting' its goods into the rest of Europe at neglectible costs, thus raising the unemployment rates in states with higher production costs - but it is also our only hope of economic survival.
Why so? Experience shows that small economic zones are by far less stable and more receptive to outside influences than big ones. This is easily explainable: The less economic factors in a system, the bigger the impact of a single one of them becoming dysfunctional. If, for example, a big manufacturer closes shop in a small trade zone, this can deal a heavy blow to the whole economy because there's a relatively high amount of new unemployment putting pressure on the economy or because that manufacturer can't supply other companies anymore. If the same thing happens in a bigger trade zone with more participants, it won't be as disastrous because others can 'take over'. Thus, big trade zones are better at weathering difficult times. I can guarantee to you that seperated national European trade zones with toll borders would've been hit a whole lot harder by the recession we're currently recovering from.
Thus, it's not sufficient to 'keep trading' with each other; we need a form of trade union. There are various forms of organization for such a union - the one currently active is that of a bureaucratic system answering to the conference of the participating member states. The heads of states meet, agree on certain cornerstones of the way the joint economic zone should be handled (and what a damn difficult process this is, as every member state has full veto power), and then leaves the exact implementation to our friends in Brussels. This system is what produces those bizarre overregulations that strive to standardize bananas.
Now, if we look at this combination of the necessity of a trade union, and the devastating outcome of the attempt of a bureaucratic solution to the answer of the organization, the question is not so much whether we want <i>a</i> EU or not, but whether we want <i>this</i> EU or not. It would be just as (or even more) possible to regulate the trade zone via a jointly elected gremium - such as the Parliament might become once, if we actually gave it power.
Whew, I fear I just wrote way too much once again. I hope you didn't get too bored <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then again, English farmers are still waiting for compensation over France burning our lambs at the Channel Ports, in protest at their import, and simply blockading the ports to stop our goods going in. Even when the dispute has nothing to do with us. So much for free trade. Maybe we should just trade with the rest of Europe...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's differentiate between Europe, the union, Europe, its member states, and Europe, its member states' administrations.
If you want to start pointing fingers at the mistakes of the latter, you'll have your work cut out for you, and believe me, <i>no</i> administration will pass without blame.
--
<!--QuoteBegin-Monsieur Evil+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Monsieur Evil)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting. So you are saying that the EU's crises over elections, the Constitution, and its basic foundations boil down to a lack of moral fiber? I am inclined to agree with your theory. The big question is, how do you get around that? America's founding fathers had many axes to grind which forced compromises here and there during the formation of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, but they ultimately showed a vision of democracy and freedom never seen before or since (even if not always lived up to in practice in the US, it has always been a goal to be strived for and every year comes closer). They were similar in background to these EU politicians as well, I don't doubt; wealthy, powerful men in their own right. Perhaps the modern man is morally incapable of holding power and using it responsibly? I don't believe it, but others might - the EU's example is certainly not backing me up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ye gods, we are agreeing? Let's change that...
If we want to compare the basis of the formation of the US with that of the EU, we should keep in mind that the founding fathers operated on a joint, unifying experience - the Independence War. The politicans taking influence in the EU struggled first with the experiences of WW2 and then the Cold War, both highly separating events. Also, the young America was at an economic dead end (need I remind you that revolution money was used as wallpaper on several occasions around that time), which put pressure on the founders to search economic shelter in a more cooperative model. The European Union is (thankfully) not (yet?) at a point where a stronger cooperation is a matter of self-preservation.
Also, and this might be the deciding factor, the European movement lacks persons of a format of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson; it lacks unifying strong characters that manage to transport "a vision of democracy and freedom never seen before or since", as you so aptly put it. Maybe, if we had another Willy Brandt instead of a Gerhard Schr?der, we might stand a better chance.
By the way, it takes every muscle in my body to let that "and every year comes closer" slide for fear of derailing the thread <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While were on the topic, explain to me again why modeling the EU Constitution and governmental layout after that of the US is being so obviously avoided? It handles just about every dumb mistake the last EU Constituional convention made and argued over and subsequently vetoed, and its proven in that it worked for 215 years. The distribution of state power, the supreme court, state's rights, the bill of rights, etc. Is it the 'not invented here' syndrome of redesigning the wheel? Maybe something for another topic...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think it's a matter of 'not invented here', it's more a matter of nobody earnestly believing that the nation states administrations would at this point agree to a constitution as far reaching as this.
It'd be comparable to trying to amend the Bill of Rights with an article against monopolism today. Sure, it's a nice idea and all, but do you really think it'd <i>happen</i>?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And before comepletley blaming the politicians for not covering the EU elections, Constitution, etc., might we ask what axe the Press has to grind? After all, if they want something to be news, it will be news. If not, it won't.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm reluctant to blaming 'the media' as it's like blaming 'the french' for something - the mass you are referring to is just way too heterogenous to make any clear statements.
Parts of European policy - take for example its expansion into eastern Europe - were actually met with comparably high medial attention. It's just unfortunately a rule of thumb that no TV station will cut into a completely new and highly complex topic if it isn't forced to (remember how long it took for the mainstream media to take notice of the war discussion), and in this case, that obligation lies in my perception squarely on the backs of the politics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First, let's get rid of the Civ-terms here. Nations don't trade with each other, nations merely regulated the level of trade that is allowed to occur between their borders <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bah! Tell that to all the people developing nuclear weapons with the aid of North Korea and China! Or to Russia's soon-to-be-state-owned oil resources. Governments trade all the time, just not proper civilized governments.
To your whole first few long paragraphs, I guess I have no reply. The free trade zone bit is pretty much done, and has been for a decade. Conceptually, its easy for us to understand because we have NAFTA, the new Aussie free trade agreement, our most favored nation ties, etc.
BUT! I think we're beyond talking about the trade part now. I don't think most people in Europe are up in arms about lower taxes. We're talking about the rest - the potential for a 'United States of Europe' entity, with its own military, federal police, president, congress, laws, intelligence agencies, tax collectors, garbage men, t-shirts, etc. As it stands right now, that's where all the arguing comes in, and my point still stands that until you 'de-nationalise', you will continue to be wasting all your taxpayer's time. There was no need in the US to make Canada and Mexico into the next two US states when NAFTA was formed, because the intention was always very clear that this was a trade pact, and nothing BUT a trade pact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, and this might be the deciding factor, the European movement lacks persons of a format of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson; it lacks unifying strong characters that manage to transport "a vision of democracy and freedom never seen before or since", as you so aptly put it. Maybe, if we had another Willy Brandt instead of a Gerhard Schröder, we might stand a better chance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A superb point you make here. And nearly impossible to do much about, unfortunately.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way, it takes every muscle in my body to let that "and every year comes closer" slide for fear of derailing the thread <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was of course refering to things like several centuries of legalised racism, which directly contradicted the Constitution, and other similar things. Not flash in the pan Presidents keeping a handful of terrorists illegally jailed. As a whole, the shift towards the ideal has been clearly documented and ever closer to realisation. Another topic, though. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm reluctant to blaming 'the media' as it's like blaming 'the french' for something - the mass you are referring to is just way too heterogenous to make any clear statements.
Parts of European policy - take for example its expansion into eastern Europe - were actually met with comparably high medial attention. It's just unfortunately a rule of thumb that no TV station will cut into a completely new and highly complex topic if it isn't forced to (remember how long it took for the mainstream media to take notice of the war discussion), and in this case, that obligation lies in my perception squarely on the backs of the politics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Be reluctant all you like. By your own admission, in the <b>mainstream</b> (happy?) European press, it is very hard to learn about the EU. I spend hours trying to look up facts when we start digging into this can of worms every time, and usually end up feeling unsatisifed with my tiny sources. Without acting like a conspiracy theorist, the EU as we know it has been an overriding source of power in Europe for 12 years now (arguably longer), and yet the population it governs/controls seems to be painfully unaware of it. I think that if the Press wanted to make it into an issue, they could. They have simply chosen not to - Naturally, many of the massive media enterprises have relationships with the wealthy and powerful men of the EU.
It seems that in Europe, people are still looking for the question that the EU is the answer to.
Like Neo! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well, seeing that we were talking about the EUs members, I hoped I didn't have to go there <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Conceptually, its easy for us to understand because we have NAFTA, the new Aussie free trade agreement, our most favored nation ties, etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the misunderstanding that leads to your next paragraph. The European trade zone can <i>not</i> be compared to NAFTA & co:
Without of trying to oversimplify the issue, I think it's fair to claim that the trade agreements you mentioned are heavily dominated and dictated by the USAs administration. I don't mean to imply that the other member states don't derive benefits from those agreements, I'm simply stating that the US are the driving force and the main decision makers behind NAFTA & co., which is understandeable since the US' economy is the centerpiece. I could go into a long rant about why I'm not especially happy about those setups, but let's save that for another day.
The EUs trading zone is different, both in practice and intention. To illustrate, I'll have to go into the EUs history:
One of the most influental 'fathers' of the EU was, as you might know, Robert Schumann, a French foreign minister shortly after the war. He believed strongly in the concept of a 'USE', but was aware that the European divide had only been enlarged by the then-recent second World War and the preceeding age of chauvinistic nationalism. Thus, Schumann realized that it'd be impossible to unite Europe politically or ideologically. Instead, he tried to unite it via an economic detour: The Montane Union, sapling of the joint trade zone. Schumanns idea was that free-flowing trade and the higher top-level cooperation that went with it would make it easier to later unify other aspects of the European nations. His next step would've been the unification of the European armies, which was then, sadly and ironically, blocked by the French parliament. Nonetheless, the Montane Union and its treaties remain the very basis of the EU.
The basic assumption behind this slowly emerging joint trade zone meant that no single nation could be allowed to 'dominate' its decision making process, and thus, this was ensured by various means, most importantly the requirement of unanimosity which I already cited. I think you can imagine that such an organization will take a route quite different from that of the NAFTA.
And this leads us to the points you made in your next paragraph:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BUT! I think we're beyond talking about the trade part now. I don't think most people in Europe are up in arms about lower taxes. We're talking about the rest - the potential for a 'United States of Europe' entity, with its own military, federal police, president, congress, laws, intelligence agencies, tax collectors, garbage men, t-shirts, etc. As it stands right now, that's where all the arguing comes in, and my point still stands that until you 'de-nationalise', you will continue to be wasting all your taxpayer's time. There was no need in the US to make Canada and Mexico into the next two US states when NAFTA was formed, because the intention was always very clear that this was a trade pact, and nothing BUT a trade pact.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, as I hope I have shown, the EUs trade zone isn't, and moreso, it brings the <i>need</i> for a higher political coordination, which can then be the sapling for some sort of European federal entity. Let me give you an example:
The EU does so far not have one set tax policy - taxing is still sole domain of the national states. This, combined with the open borders, has some interesting effects. Germany and France, for example, have wildly different oil taxes (Germany's partly governed by the Greens, which try to regulate oil overuse via increased taxes.). This means that every German close enough to the French border to make it count will buy gasoline in France. Similiar can be observed on every border, in both directions, on various different areas from real estate taxation to the costs of tablewater.
You don't need a business degree to realize why this is not too good for either nations economy. Thus, it's only sensible for the member states to equate their tax policy, which slowly begins.
And one day, provided there are trustworthy democratic supra-national organizational structures, people will think "Shoot! Why do we employ more than a dozen different treasuries when a single one and the already existing regional ones can do the job just as well?", and one of the most important and sensitive areas of politics will have transferred from the national to the European level.
This will of course never happen in the NAFTA. <i>If</i> the tax policy will ever be equalled there, it'll be the other member states following the US' example.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Be reluctant all you like. By your own admission, in the <b>mainstream</b> (happy?) European press, it is very hard to learn about the EU. I spend hours trying to look up facts when we start digging into this can of worms every time, and usually end up feeling unsatisifed with my tiny sources. Without acting like a conspiracy theorist, the EU as we know it has been an overriding source of power in Europe for 12 years now (arguably longer), and yet the population it governs/controls seems to be painfully unaware of it. I think that if the Press wanted to make it into an issue, they could. They have simply chosen not to - Naturally, many of the massive media enterprises have relationships with the wealthy and powerful men of the EU.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're already at a partial agreement here, and the rest will mainly be a matter of personal weighing, but I'd like to point out that you, speaking English, will have even bigger problems than me at getting a fair and balanced impression of the European medias landscape. You are basically limited to the (as a whole comparably anti-EU) English press (everyone, please excuse the horrible oversimplification!) and the English parts of other big newspapers.
My favorite, the Spiegel, for example, <i>does</i> run regular articles on EU issues (of widely varying enthusiasm), while large parts of the visual German media fail to give the EU even the slightest of acknowledgements. Again, making statements about the European presses attitude towards any topic is a highly difficult thing, although I'll agree with you that the EU does not get the attention it requires, and that this will partly have to do with people of the likes of Mr. Murdoch.
Let's not talk about the arms trade, then... (:<
RE: Founding fathers. Apart from Nem's point (a good one, I might add (: ), I think you're right when you say a "modern" version is less likely. We can draw parrallels between the birth and growth of the US, and the development of Britain's democracy in the 19th century; in both cases, those responsible for the changes were rich people outside of politics. That is to say, they were wealthy not as a result of politics; they could only enter politics because they were already in money. Nowadays, that is simply not the case. Politicians go into politics as a career. It's in their best interests to keep the EU the way it is, because they can exploit the system to get money out of it. I don't think all those who go into politics or the EU are <a href='http://www.time.com/time/magazine/intl/article/0,9171,1107990329-22866,00.html' target='_blank'>"Edith Cresson"s</a> (corrupt and arrogant). Those with morals (and guts) tend to <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/28/whistle128.xml' target='_blank'>whistleblow</a>, and that's the end of their career in the EU.
British MEPs have a reputation for this, but it isn't just them, by a long shot. By the way, the reporter who had his computer seized is called <a href='http://www.hannan.co.uk/news.htm' target='_blank'>Dan Hannan</a>. I said he was a Belgian, but he's a German who was raided by Belgian police; my bad. Here's confirmation of the raid:
<a href='http://www.rsf.org/print.php3?id_article=9582' target='_blank'>link 1</a>, <a href='http://vigilant.tv/article/3591' target='_blank'>link 2</a>.
Free Trade: I have nothing against Free Trade, or what the EU used to be (the EEC). I just don't think that politics ought to be brought into it.
Sleaze: We start <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1999/03/16/weur16.html' target='_blank'>here</a>. Oh dear. Still, there is hope, as Mr.Kinnock is <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1999/07/10/weu10.html' target='_blank'>given</a> the task of handling "mismanagement". He announces an <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/01/19/weu19.html' target='_blank'>overhaul</a> . So far, so good. <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/04/14/weu14.html' target='_blank'>Time passes</a>. <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/11/16/waud16.xml' target='_blank'>More time passes</a>. Kinnock <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/11/19/weu19.xml' target='_blank'>promises to try again</a>. <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/07/21/whistl21.xml' target='_blank'>This</a> a repeat of the whistleblowing link: it's 2002, and "mismanagement" is still going on, it seems. The former <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/02/wec02.xml' target='_blank'>chief accountant</a> seems to think so, anyway. Time passes, and it's now 2003. Time for some <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,922097,00.html' target='_blank'>fraud</a>! And maybe some <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/18/wmep18.xml' target='_blank'>looting</a>. Kinnock decides that <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=FZWQTNOHJRVXLQFIQMFSM5WAVCBQ0JVC?xml=/news/2003/07/10/wkinn10.xml' target='_blank'>drastic action</a> is called for...time for some <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/25/weu25.xml' target='_blank'>volleyball</a>. And the <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/26/wprodi26.xml' target='_blank'> final link.</a>
I hate the Telegraph's website (www.telegraph.co.uk). All those articles are on there, but not all are linked together (it shows some links at the bottom). Searching for "Europe AND Accounts" would bring up results about mobile phones and suchlike. Thank God for Google. I think I've pieced together a coherant timeline there, though. Until we sort out these people, there's no point in discussing integration, really; how can they be trusted with money?
I had some other points, but...I kinda forgot. Piecing that timeline took me <i>ages</i>. I'll be back later. ;P
Well, how are you going to keep the two seperate? Any economic zone needs to be organized - that's one of the things governments were created for in the first place. Trade legislation has to be coherent from country to country or it won't be possible to make safe transactions. The joint outside borders need to be guarded to alleviate for the free movement within the trade zone. Big economic differences within the trade zone will be disadvantegeous for all concerned (see my initial example of the problem of companies moving into low-pay countries) and should thus be avoided. All that <i>are</i> politics.
<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1242743,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1242743,00.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Europe's new constitution sets out the rules and procedures for an EU of 25 or more countries, clarifying the division of responsibilities between the union and its constituent nation states.
Two years in the making, the <b>333-page document is intended to simplify and streamline </b>decision-making and prevent bureaucratic gridlock in an organisation with four times as many members as the EEC, founded in 1957.
It condenses 80,000 pages of EU laws spread across four treaties into one new one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
HOLY ****! 333 pages?!?!?!?!?!?! So much for following previous examples of elegant simplicity... -_-
<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1242743,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1242743,00.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Europe's new constitution sets out the rules and procedures for an EU of 25 or more countries, clarifying the division of responsibilities between the union and its constituent nation states.
Two years in the making, the <b>333-page document is intended to simplify and streamline </b>decision-making and prevent bureaucratic gridlock in an organisation with four times as many members as the EEC, founded in 1957.
It condenses 80,000 pages of EU laws spread across four treaties into one new one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
HOLY ****! 333 pages?!?!?!?!?!?! So much for following previous examples of elegant simplicity... -_- <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, that's the EUs biggest problem. Everything is way too complex for the average joe to understand. For example the language issue, why the hell are they trying to please every single person? Just get over yourselves and agree that it's english. Or agree that it's chinese for all I care, just try to agree on something.
If I got this right, it does not necessarily require unanimous acceptance by all member states, but I doubt that it'd truly come into effect if, say, the German Bundestag refused to ratify it. Seeing the current partisan politics many European parties use, I can imagine the refusal of this treaty becoming the new all-purpose campaign slogan of various opposition parties. So in short, I doubt it'll be ratified in any way significant enough to give it the status of a true European consitution, and even if it was, I doubt that it'd change much.
The maybe best thing that could come out of this is that the European public will be more sensibilized, thus more perceptive (and <i>thus</i> more influental) on the next try.