Growing Plot to Unite the EU under one non-elected President

[Winner]

I don't think no upper house would be good for the EU. It needs some institution that's dedicated to represent the interests of its constituents in a non-proportional manner like the US Senate, because then we could abolish the awful non-proportional principles of the European Parliament, throw the national governments themselves out of the EU decision making and scrap the ridiculous 1 member = 1 commissioner rule.

He doesn't want to abolish the EU council, he wants to abolish the European Council. The difference was described in the post you quoted.

 

[Leoreth]

Oh, right. I misunderstood him and thought that he wanted the Parliament and Commission to be the only remaining institutions in either case.

My criticisms of the Parliament and Commission still stand, though

 

[Hehehe]

Of course, I fully approve - nation states won't give the EP any more power unless it seizes it.

And how do you think that will go with the member states? What exactly does "seizing power" mean? You can't seize more power than whatever member states are willing to give you.

There's plot to unite the EU growing in this very thread it seems. I'm just throwing this opinion out here, but I'm not at all sure if I want to be part of whatever federal European Union you guys are planning. And I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way. This whole EU thing was poorly planned from the start, and seeing more poor plans made forces me to consider if this is such a good idea.

 

[Leoreth]

All I see in this thread are people who discuss how to improve the institutions of the EU. If that's already an antinational plot, I don't know what isn't, and how you will ever be satisfied with any federalising process.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that the answer could be found in the past, even if it follows the past progression too.
Maybe a sort of split of Euro powers. Currently the european capital is Brussels, which is just central to France, the Uk and Germany. Hardly a good choice for a supposed union of the continent.

I could see Europe working more efficiently under a tetrarchy. Even if it later on means the four parts will become factions divided, at least it would be a more viable plan than the union of half a billion people with tens of different languages.

It was a romantic idea to base the united Europe on ancient Greece and ancient Rome, but it hardly means much to people who are not classicists. The average person appears to have little to no sense of belonging in a united Europe.

On the contrary if this was a unity of fewer countries, with a supra-structure to oversee the supra-union of those unions, it might begin to work.

Let me say that this crisis has shown at best that the EU was never ready nor willing to help any of its members, and pretty much acted as a German Empire. Of course no one wants that, entire wars were fought to prevent this kind of Europe. So something different must take place.

I think that it would make sense to unite countries with particular cultural similarities. For example i could see Italy and Greece as one, but not Croatia and Greece. There is zero similarity there culturally, and instead there is animosity (if only due to Greek traditional ties to Serbia). On the contrary i am sure Austria would be fine uniting with the likes of Croatia, since it was with them in the past as well.

But i am not really sure if the global trend is indeed trully one of unity of nations. The past does not show that. In fact only out of war did this strange idea of unity come forth. Maybe there will be another war, and then this idea will be further propagated, but in my view it can only work if, like i already stated so many times, the united nationalities share some serious links.

 

[Flying Pig]

No, the european parliament is the only portion of the EU bureaucracy to be elected.

Yes, but the issue is that any one of the people it governs has only a tiny say in its composition - for example, the British can only vote on about 10% of the seats, so we have no influence at all over who sits in 90% of them. That makes a lot of people very uneasy.

 

[innonimatu]

The problem was that they tried to force progress unto those who refused it, instead of just progressing without them.

I'd love to see the EU trying to "progress" without France (where the so-called constitution was rejected)! Makes for kind of a big hole in the middle...

Yes, but the issue is that any one of the people it governs has only a tiny say in its composition - for example, the British can only vote on about 10% of the seats, so we have no influence at all over who sits in 90% of them. That makes a lot of people very uneasy.

Yes, I forgot that each country can make its own election rules. And now that you reminded me, it's yet another clue that the EU has always been a project by politicians and exclusively for politicians. The people has never been consulted, but dragged into it.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, I forgot that each country can make its own election rules.

No; that's just how many seats we're allocated. It's OK in the British Parliament - I vote in Essex but feel a close enough kinship with the people in Wiltshire that I trust them to have pretty much the same outlook on the world as I have - but a bit more problematic in the European Parliament when the people choosing the other 90% are, well, not like us.

And now that you reminded me, it's yet another clue that the EU has always been a project by politicians and exclusively for politicians. The people has never been consulted, but dragged into it.

I don't see that politicians are doing very well out of it - if anything, it seems nothing more than a headache for them. I also don't believe that the electorate would be able to make an informed decision on EU membership - it says something that several Opposition parties have promised a referendum on it, and changed their minds once they got into Government.

 

[Leoreth]

In the spirit of decency I'm going to ignore the nationalist drivel of Kyriakos' post.

I'd love to see the EU trying to "progress" without France (where the so-called constitution was rejected)! Makes for kind of a big hole in the middle....

Wow, will France disappear now when it doesn't sign a treaty? Imponderable!

 

[Tahuti]

He doesn't want to abolish the EU council, he wants to abolish the European Council. The difference was described in the post you quoted.

Actually, I was mixing up the EU council with the European council. Another reason to abolish the latter!

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, but the issue is that any one of the people it governs has only a tiny say in its composition - for example, the British can only vote on about 10% of the seats, so we have no influence at all over who sits in 90% of them. That makes a lot of people very uneasy.

Couldn't you say the same thing about any given region of Britain in regards to the Westminster parliament? Unless I'm missing something, you're just describing representationalism legislatures in general, rather than anything unique to the EU.

 

[Flying Pig]

Couldn't you say the same thing about any given region of Britain in regards to the Westminster parliament? Unless I'm missing something, you're just describing representationalism legislatures in general, rather than anything unique to the EU.

I think I explained the rub - we feel that we're broadly the same as folk across the UK, but there's a distinct sense of 'otherness' about people in Germany, Greece or Poland. Nobody likes the feeling that they're having rules dictated to them by foreigners.

 

[Hehehe]

All I see in this thread are people who discuss how to improve the institutions of the EU.

I think most of us would agree that improving those institutions means giving them more power, something which many are not willing to do.

If that's already an antinational plot, I don't know what isn't, and how you will ever be satisfied with any federalising process.

I'm not particularly nationalistic, and I could live with a more federal EU. However there is a lot stuff that needs to be fixed before that.

Let me say that this crisis has shown at best that the EU was never ready nor willing to help any of its members, and pretty much acted as a German Empire. Of course no one wants that, entire wars were fought to prevent this kind of Europe. So something different must take place.

It's a difficult issue, and I don't blame Germany (as much) as you do. But it is not as simple as you make it sound. While a lot of things have been set up in a way that benefits Germany, I believe the root of the problem is that Greece accepted and was accepted in the euro. That puts Greece on the same line as export juggernaut Germany, without being able to manipulate its own currency as a defense mechanism. And Greek economy simply could not compete with Germany.

I think that it would make sense to unite countries with particular cultural similarities. For example i could see Italy and Greece as one, but not Croatia and Greece. There is zero similarity there culturally, and instead there is animosity (if only due to Greek traditional ties to Serbia). On the contrary i am sure Austria would be fine uniting with the likes of Croatia, since it was with them in the past as well.

No; that's just how many seats we're allocated. It's OK in the British Parliament - I vote in Essex but feel a close enough kinship with the people in Wiltshire that I trust them to have pretty much the same outlook on the world as I have - but a bit more problematic in the European Parliament when the people choosing the other 90% are, well, not like us.

This is the root of the problem. Europeans simply do not have a common (enough) identity. Not enough common ground to make some sort of federal state work.

And now that you reminded me, it's yet another clue that the EU has always been a project by politicians and exclusively for politicians. The people has never been consulted, but dragged into it.

Why would you ask the people, when there's always the risk that they say no? But yes, this, along with EU being poorly set up from the start, and the lack of common identity, are what's wrong with the EU.

 

[Tahuti]

It's a difficult issue, and I don't blame Germany (as much) as you do. But it is not as simple as you make it sound. While a lot of things have been set up in a way that benefits Germany, I believe the root of the problem is that Greece accepted and was accepted in the euro. That puts Greece on the same line as export juggernaut Germany, without being able to manipulate its own currency as a defense mechanism. And Greek economy simply could not compete with Germany.

That's not the problem. The problem was that the banks were foolish enough to lend to Greece. If it weren't for them, the Greek debt crises would've only been a Greek problem and not the Pan-European problem it is right now.

This is the root of the problem. Europeans simply do not have a common (enough) identity. Not enough common ground to make some sort of federal state work.

That's because Europeans feel they lack influence. If the European Parliament for example has the power to appoint the Commission, I can already imagine the media coverage that will bring, which in turn instills a sense of European identity.

 

[innonimatu]

It's a difficult issue, and I don't blame Germany (as much) as you do. But it is not as simple as you make it sound. While a lot of things have been set up in a way that benefits Germany, I believe the root of the problem is that Greece accepted and was accepted in the euro. That puts Greece on the same line as export juggernaut Germany, without being able to manipulate its own currency as a defense mechanism. And Greek economy simply could not compete with Germany.

True, that was a tremendous political mistake. But it's worth noting that the EU treaties require that its member states join the euro, and the states that have so far remained out did so - theoretically - on a temporary basis.
The idea of the Euro was that stupid from the beginning: a political requirement that all members eventually join it, and restrictive conditions (also politically imposed), for joining in. Which were afterwards immediately broken by several states, France and Germany included.

 

[innonimatu]

No; that's just how many seats we're allocated. It's OK in the British Parliament - I vote in Essex but feel a close enough kinship with the people in Wiltshire that I trust them to have pretty much the same outlook on the world as I have - but a bit more problematic in the European Parliament when the people choosing the other 90% are, well, not like us.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, that is a problem. Another problem.

That's not the problem. The problem was that the banks were foolish enough to lend to Greece. If it weren't for them, the Greek debt crises would've only been a Greek problem and not the Pan-European problem it is right now.

Not only that, the bank's willingness to lend was what enabled that borrowing. The euro by itself did not cause interest rates in loans to Greece to fall, because all the ECB did back then was set a reference rate used in small refinancing operations.
So, there wouldn't have been a debt crisis because there wouldn't have been such a buildup of debt.

But this is a bit academic. In reality the expected effect of using the euro was a fall in interest rates and, bankers being bankers, they queued to lend. We just can't expect bankers to behave responsibly, and everyone should know it even back in 1998.
The regulators, the central banks and chief among those the ECB, also failed. And the politicians who should have kicked out the bad regulators and found competent people also failed. The predominant political ideology of the some being that "bankers knew best", the "independence" of central banks and so on. Not that it has changed that much now, changing it would require admitting to mistakes...

Instead you get to see the very same bankers who caused (or closed their eyes and allowed) the crisis now prescribing policy to "solve" the crisis to governments, and still being taken seriously!

 

[Leoreth]

I think most of us would agree that improving those institutions means giving them more power, something which many are not willing to do.

Oh, then you've misunderstood at least my intentions. My main goal would be to reduce the bureaucratic and improve the representational character of the EU institutions. Getting rid of the European Council, national quotas in the Commission and a truly proportionally representational European Parliament would be a step into that direction imo, without necessarily strengthening the EU competences over national governments. It would only strengthen the European citizens' direct say in its decision instead of their governments.

I completely agree with you that any further expansion of EU power cannot take place before its problems with actual democratic representation are solved.

True, that was a tremendous political mistake. But it's worth noting that the EU treaties require that its member states join the euro, and the states that have so far remained out did so - theoretically - on a temporary basis.
The idea of the Euro was that stupid from the beginning: a political requirement that all members eventually join it, and restrictive conditions (also politically imposed), for joining in. Which were afterwards immediately broken by several states, France and Germany included.

I agree with this. Political decisions cannot enforce economic realities [although I would like to see you apply this insight into your "but we were promised stuff!" complaints].

Even now we have people claiming the EU would fail when the Euro fails. The same logic was behind its hasty implementation: politicians simply turned a blind eye to the economic difference because they interfered with their political desires.

 

[kronic]

Interesting article on spiegel.de The Kohl government was very skeptical that the Euro could work with Italy in it, yet went on anyway: http://www.spiegel.de/international...d-to-origins-of-common-currency-a-831842.html

Idiots.

Even now we have people claiming the EU would fail when the Euro fails. The same logic was behind its hasty implementation: politicians simply turned a blind eye to the economic difference because they interfered with their political desires.

These people happen to be our leaders. And they may even be right, but in a different way: The Euro has proven so far unworkable in way that tensions are rising very fast. Instead of shrinking the Eurozone to an economic zone that includes economies who are roughly in sync (or spliting it into 2 or more such zones or returning to national currencies altogether) they keep ruining the Eurozone's economy. Let things continue in their current path for a few more years, and it will not only be the Euro but the "friendship" between the EU members that will go away. Politics quite often is not rational. Cooperation in policy areas where it would make sense can easily be dropped in times of hostility.

 

[Benefactor]

Really? I must have missed that in the news. Of course, I fully approve - nation states won't give the EP any more power unless it seizes it. It's about time the composition of the EC reflected the political realities in EP.

It's all Wikipedias page for the EU election 2014 talks about really, although only the Socialists have actually commited to it for now, they plan to hold primaries in January 2014. It's a step in the right direction, although it is fewer parties than I thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014

 

[Leoreth]

Interesting article on spiegel.de The Kohl government was very skeptical that the Euro could work with Italy in it, yet went on anyway: http://www.spiegel.de/international...d-to-origins-of-common-currency-a-831842.html

Idiots.

The Kohl government mainly viewed the Euro as a political tool to appease the French over Germany's reunification, so that the expected rise in Germany's economic power could be properly contained.

Which isn't only terribly ironic, but also sheds a new light on all those "Germany engineered the Euro to drain Europe of its wealth" theories.

These people happen to be our leaders. And they may even be right, but in a different way: The Euro has proven so far unworkable in way that tensions are rising very fast. Instead of shrinking the Eurozone to an economic zone that includes economies who are roughly in sync (or spliting it into 2 or more such zones or returning to national currencies altogether) they keep ruining the Eurozone's economy. Let things continue in their current path for a few more years, and it will not only be the Euro but the "friendship" between the EU members that will go away. Politics quite often is not rational. Cooperation in policy areas where it would make sense can easily be dropped in times of hostility.

Sure, I was actively referring to our leaders here.