EU: why is the European Construction so slow?

[Winner]

The slow pace of European building is usually explained by the reluctance of people to give up their national sovereignty. I wanted to know if this is true, so I did a small research on Eurobarometer (institute making the public opinion research) pages.

I've been surprised, that the idea of common foreign policy, security and defence policy as well as heading towards the political union is supported by clear majority of Europeans.

I'd like to post some interesting figures and graphs. The question is why then is the European public mystified by the media? Why are the politicans saying "people don't want deeper integration of the EU"?

Is the process of European construction hindered by the politicians, who are reluctant to give up their power in the member countries?

Also, the figures show, that the people in New Member states of the EU are generally more open to the idea of deeper integration of Europe. This is in contradiction with a common myth that the new members are hindering French and German efforts to speed up the pace of construction.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------​

Support for a common security and defence policy

- Still very strong expectations -

European public opinion is still very receptive to issues relating to the European
security and defence policy (ESDP). Within the enlarged European Union, support for a
common security and defence policy remains high (77% compared with 78% last
autumn)17. The stability of this result is no doubt influenced by the situation in Iraq
and questions relating to nuclear weapons developed or supposedly possessed by
certain countries.
The intensity of this support is even stronger in the 10 new Member States: there is a
difference of 10 points between the average obtained in the 15 old Member States in
comparison to that in the 10 new Member States (75% versus 85% respectively).

Although citizens in Cyprus (+ 11 points since the last survey), Belgium and Slovenia
seem to be the most committed supporters of a common security and defence policy
(around 90% in favour of the idea), support is far less clear-cut with stronger
opposition in Sweden, Finland and Austria. In the latter three Member States, almost a
third of respondents are against the idea. It is to be noted that the three countries in
question are not members but simply partners of NATO, which may illustrate a certain
reluctance to delegate part of national sovereignty in this area.
Finally, it is to be noted that support for a common security and defence policy
continues to be particularly strong in the countries which recently joined NATO
(Estonia, Poland and the Czech Republic in particular).

Support for a common foreign policy

- A slight fall in support for a common foreign policy -

Support for a common foreign policy has fallen slightly, by two points since the last
survey18; 67% of European citizens now support this idea. However, the difference
between the level of support recorded for a common defence and security policy and
that recorded for a common foreign policy has increased, and now stands at 10 points.
Sweden stands out from the other Member States in that more Swedes are against the
idea than are for it (47% and 46% respectively). The United Kingdom is the second
country where support for this concept is less than 50%. As regards the other
countries, the strength of support tends to be in line with that recorded as regards the
common security and defence policy. The strongest support is in Cyprus, Slovenia and
Germany.

Development towards European political union

- Almost six out of ten respondents are still in favour of moving towards more
European political union -

In line with the results recorded last autumn, the idea of European political union is
supported by almost 60% of respondents19 (58% to be precise).
It is noteworthy that support is still stronger in the 10 new Member States (67%
versus 57% in the 15 old Member States); support is particularly strong in Rumania
(77%).
In the 10 new Member States, support for European political union is the strongest in
Slovenia, Slovakia and Hungary (approximately three quarters of citizens are in favour
of it).
In the 15 old Member States, three Mediterranean countries (Italy, Spain and Greece)
are the strongest supporters of this concept. Conversely, in Finland, Sweden and the
United Kingdom, almost one in two respondents seems to be against the idea of
European political union, which is in line with the results obtained in October 2004.
Finally, the highest level of support for European political union is to be found once
again in Rumania, where 77% of the population are in favour of European political
union. The other candidate countries also have a large majority in favour of this idea.

Source: EUROBAROMETER 63

 

[Winner]

-reserved for additional data I may find interesting-

 

[Stylesjl]

I think it is the politicians not willing to give power to the union and maybe also a beleif among members citizens that the EU is corrupt

 

[Winner]

I think it is the politicians not willing to give power to the union and maybe also a beleif among members citizens that the EU is corrupt

If yes, how is it possible that the EU even evolved in the current form?

The politicans are usually very quick in reflecting public fears, so why they ignore these clear and understandable wishes of people?

 

[Stylesjl]

I think it might have orginally evolved due to fear of the communists and the short lived feeling of unity (after WWII) but now i think it is declining and people just seem to feel the EU is destroying their culture and sovereignty

But i really don't know im not european

 

[MaisseArsouye]

I'm suprised byt these stats. But this is pretty good news. It seems people want a united Europe, but not the EU politicians are trying to impose us.

 

[Winner]

I'm suprised byt these stats. But this is pretty good news. It seems people want a united Europe, but not the EU politicians are trying to impose us.

The question is whether the people know, what they want. But the support for further integration is strong, so the politicians should do something without fearing negative reaction.

Our problem is, that the European politicians are cowards

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I'd say two things:

1) What people say they want and how they act are not necessarily the same.
2) Politicians can derail the peoples wants if they are not strong wants. This may be a subject far more important to politicians than it is to the people.

I know plenty of people who are very strong advocates for gay marriage and stem cell research, but still voted for Bush as there were other issues that were 'more' important to them at the time. I am one of them, so I can see how folks may vote for issues that are 'more' important to them at election time.

 

[stormbind]

Because EU decision makers (tyrants), and national decision makes (citizens), want conflicting things.

 

[Winner]

Because EU decision makers (tyrants), and national decision makes (citizens), want conflicting things.

There are no EU decision makers. The only truly "European" politicians are those sitting in European Parliament. Those are directly elected and they usually act like that. The rest is not elected, they are just appointed by the nation states (with partial exception in the case of European Commission, which has to be approved by the European Parliament).

The problem is in the national representatives, who don't want to hand over some of their power. In fact, the EU is less democratic because of the arrogance of nation states.

But as I see, you blame EU for something it cannot change without cooperation of goverments of the member countries.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Thanks for this great thread Winner. This is really well done.

I'm glad because it proves that most clichés usually given are wrong. Clearly we can't summarize the situation in saying it's the pro-UK eurosceptic liberals vs the antiamerican europtimistic old Europe.

However, before saying that everything is going well, I think it's important to take in consideration the evolution of those statistics. In France, people supporting a political unification process in Europe where nearly 70% before the campaign on the French referendum. Today, obviously it has fallen to 54% (with 38% against it).

Clearly, most of the questions asked in this eurobarometer haven't been debated yet in the public. That's very important. Indeed, people answer according to their personal thinking, they haven't heard yet political arguments about it, especially those of politicians who are against those evolutions. Maybe that's because I've grown pessimistic but obviously politicians against don't hesitate to use all tactics imagineable in order to convince you their country will become hell soon if those integrations are made in Europe.

All this to say that we should be especially careful when hearing those stats from the eurobarometer. After all, before there's any political campaign on the EU constitution in France, 75% of French people supported it. Finally, the "no" prevailed with 55% of voters.

 

[stormbind]

What most citizens want is very simple:

1. Free movement: freedom to be an economic migrant, or employ economic migrants
2. Shared standards: reduces development and manufacturing costs
3. Free trade: no tax of levies on materials or products shipped across borders

What tyrants want is very simple:

1. Reduced sovereignty, shared identification, reduced privacy
2. Shared defense assets and command structure (no defense from other members)
3. The real kick in the teeth: taxes and levies on materials/products crossing the organisation border

These are incompatible views. Say YES to EU expansion; creation of peace and co-operation; economic prosperity. Say NO to EU change; loss of privacy; reduced sovereignty; and capped economic growth.

 

[Marla_Singer]

There are no EU decision makers. The only truly "European" politicians are those sitting in European Parliament. Those are directly elected and they usually act like that. The rest is not elected, they are just appointed by the nation states (with partial exception in the case of European Commission, which has to be approved by the European Parliament).

Well, there are three main institutions in the EU. You've mentionned on purpose the Parliament and the Commission, but you've forgotten the most important one : the Council. The council is made of the 25 leaders of EU countries. It's the council which takes all the decision, the commission, which has as purpose to think about the European interests and not about national interests, is only here to apply the decision taken by the council.

Clearly, member states governments are all-mighty in the European Union.

The problem is in the national representatives, who don't want to hand over some of their power. In fact, the EU is less democratic because of the arrogance of nation states.

This is very true. Governments are not ready to abandon their power on the European Union. I don't know how we can change this but that's one of the most important problem currently. That's actually the main explanation about the lack of democracy at a European scale.

 

[Winner]

What most citizens want is very simple:

1. Free movement: freedom to be an economic migrant, or employ economic migrants
2. Shared standards: reduces development and manufacturing costs
3. Free trade: no tax of levies on materials or products shipped across borders

1, 2 - agreed
3- No. Most citizens want to block foreign imports and support for own exports.

What tyrants want is very simple:

1. Reduced sovereignty, shared identification, reduced privacy
2. Shared defense assets and command structure (no defense from other members)
3. The real kick in the teeth: taxes and levies on materials/products crossing the organisation border

1) Reduced sovereignty doesn't mean the latter. Reduced sovereignty means also reduced possibility for nation states to hinder free trade, it means reduced possibility for nation states to protect their own inefficient industries. I understand what you don't like in the EU, but these things aren't there because of the EU, but because of its member states.

2) This is supported by the people too. I fail to see why should the common defense be wrong.

3) This exists because of the member states, again. And of course, everybody is doing it, even the US.

These are incompatible views. Say YES to EU expansion; creation of peace and co-operation; economic prosperity. Say NO to EU change; loss of privacy; reduced sovereignty; and capped economic growth.

Not fault of the EU.

 

[Winner]

Well, there are three main institutions in the EU. You've mentionned on purpose the Parliament and the Commission, but you've forgotten the most important one : the Council. The council is made of the 25 leaders of EU countries. It's the council which takes all the decision, the commission, which has as purpose to think about the European interests and not about national interests, is only here to apply the decision taken by the council.

Clearly, member states governments are all-mighty in the European Union.

I know, but I didn't mention it because I was talking about the only directly elected institution, the European parliament. The members of Council aren't elected, they are those national representatives I don't like.

Stormbind blame the trans-national principles for all the bad in the Union. The truth is it is the nationalism, what produces the most of stupid things that he criticizes.

This is very true. Governments are not ready to abandon their power on the European Union. I don't know how we can change this but that's one of the most important problem currently. That's actually the main explanation about the lack of democracy at a European scale.

The sad reality I guess we have to wait for the next generation of politicians, but I am not hopefull...

 

[The Last Conformist]

European voters are generally fearful of change. As long as that remains, any change will tend to be glacial.

 

[Hotpoint]

I would say that the reason why European integration is so slow is that the majority of people are (small c) conservative and are wary of change. You might really attribute it to a lack of imagination perhaps.

It's not really "reduced" sovereignty anyway, it's more a matter of "pooled" sovereignty. To give one example the UK actually benefits from increased sovereignty in some terms of overseas trade as part of the EU because the Union as a whole has a far greater ability to influence the global trade conditions than the United Kingdom could ever hope to enjoy on its own.

Pooling sovereignty with the other EU countries is really no different than England doing so with the other nations of the United Kingdom for the greater good of all (or even my home county of Hampshire pooling its identity with the other counties of England for that matter). You sacrifice a little independence with equals in order to collectively retain a far greater degree of independence from other powers than would otherwise dwarf you.

When you get right down to it the European Countries can either hang together or they'll hang separately

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Compared to the red tape/bureocracy and general institutionalized theft that's going on --where I live-- Europe is a heaven. Yet I can't just grasp WHY the EU feels a need to regulate just about anything.


There's a joke about it...

The three rules of business, from government:
"If it moves, tax it!"
"If it's still moving, regulate it!"*
"If it stops moving, subsidize it!"

*In Romanian "regulate" is slang for the 4-letter f word

 

[Winner]

I would say that the reason why European integration is so slow is that the majority of people are (small c) conservative and are wary of change. You might really attribute it to a lack of imagination perhaps.

It's not really "reduced" sovereignty anyway, it's more a matter of "pooled" sovereignty. To give one example the UK actually benefits from increased sovereignty in some terms of overseas trade as part of the EU because the Union as a whole has a far greater ability to influence the global trade conditions than the United Kingdom could ever hope to enjoy on its own.

Pooling sovereignty with the other EU countries is really no different than England doing so with the other nations of the United Kingdom for the greater good of all (or even my home county of Hampshire pooling its identity with the other counties of England for that matter). You sacrifice a little independence with equals in order to collectively retain a far greater degree of independence from other powers than would otherwise dwarf you.

When you get right down to it the European Countries can either hang together or they'll hang separately

Well, the European politicians are cowards. I know I've said that already, but I mean it. They (almost) always choose the easy way - "why should I make an effort to convince people of the advantages of European integration - I could lose some votes, so I'll do nothing."
As the result of this behaviour, the anti-EU populists gain advantage over them. Not because the European people are eurosceptic in nature, but because the pro-european politics are too passive.

 

[stormbind]

1) Reduced sovereignty doesn't mean the latter. Reduced sovereignty means also reduced possibility for nation states to hinder free trade, it means reduced possibility for nation states to protect their own inefficient industries. I understand what you don't like in the EU, but these things aren't there because of the EU, but because of its member states.

I never meant to imply that reduced sovereignty does mean the others - all three details are being sought by the tyrants, and I put them together because they are related.

3) This exists because of the member states, again. And of course, everybody is doing it, even the US.

Not the UK, which has for centuries been part of an international organisation guaranteeing free trade. Commonwealth products (i.e. New Zealand butter or whatever) used to be sold in UK shops, and they were cheap because there were no trade barriers. The f~ing EU wants to impose it's taxes and tariffs on British imports! The f~ing EU seeks to increase trade barriers rather than tear them down. The f~ing EU has surrounded it's advocacy of free trade in backstabbing ulterior motives designed to increase the wealth of a few rich businessmen.

Not the fault of EU

Nonsense.