Do you think other states can rely on neighbouring states to care for them the same way they care for their own? Or did you find the joke in me saying that the EU -- which is quite consensus driven, and where each member state even has a veto in the highest political body -- is concerned with all its member countries?
Read the Lisbon Treaty and then show me where each member state has a veto,
and where it hasn't. Also list me the instances where, after that treaty was in force, a state has exercises such a veto. To say that "each member state even has a veto in the highest political body" is either a lie or ignorance.
I'm sorry for being this dense, but if you would take some pity on me, could you explain these points a bit clearer?
I'm skeptical that you can understand, because you already have a deep preconceived belief that the EU must be good. But I'll try. For the benefit of other people also.
- How is the EU above the member state governments, when it can only do what they have granted it the power to do?
- And how does this 'sale to the highest bidders' work out? Where has it happened so far?
- The EU-wide race to the bottom in taxes and worker benefits: I am not aware of this, or where it has taken place? How many taxes have been lowered and workers' benefits cut?
- Which public utilities has the EU forced to be privatised?
- How and where has the EU ordered healthcare to be cut?
- How has education been dismantled by the EU? What is wrong about making the education process similar across EU countries? It makes it rather easy to move between the countries as a student, which I always felt was pretty nice...
- How does the EU take away the autonomy of poor people while wealthy people get to keep theirs? Are there some pro-poor-person autonomy in nation states that I'm not grasping?
- It has been the entire experience of the EU that granted powers cannot be taken back except by denouncing the treaties altogether. The European Court of Justice asserts that it overrules national courts. Except Germany's, apparently. Quoting directly from the Treaty: "
in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States". Do I need to draw a picture also or is this enough?
- Lobbying, know what that word means? Where it happens is Brussels, of course. More recently also in Frankfurt. How it happens? Why, you can even (if you wish)
register as an official lobbyist. It's a who's who of world corporations. Have fun with the
tools other people already built to explore the
published data. There is far more undeclared, or do you subscribe to the fantasy that Barroso was hired by Goldman Sachs for his expertise as an investment banker?
- Taxes: the list of cuts is too long to summarize here. Search the evolution of each country's corporate taxes. If you want a resolution by the European Parliament itself admitting to tax competion where it "
welcomes beneficial tax competition among Member States as a tool to increase the competitiveness of the European economy confronted with the challenges of globalisation" check
here. They have since become more careful of using such language on the record but the forces in action remain the same, and the promised measures to avoid "harmful behaviours" were always toothless.
- Check the terms of the successive ultimatums forced on Greece by the troika.
Here is a sample news piece about one. There are many to be found.
- The EU has not "ordered" healthcare to be cut. I mentioned
public funding for healthcare. Greece again supplies the most starking example. Want a news piece from a mainstream, ezstabelisjhment media source?
Here you go:
"Until recently, Greece had a typical European health system, with employers and individuals contributing to a fund that with government assistance financed universal care. People who lost their jobs received health care and unemployment benefits for a year, but were still treated by hospitals if they could not afford to pay even after the benefits expired. Things changed in July 2011, when Greece signed a supplemental loan agreement with international lenders to ward off financial collapse. Now, as stipulated in the deal, Greeks must pay all costs out of pocket after their benefits expire."
As a condition to receive the "aid" arranged by the EU for the repayment of the german, french, etc banks, Greece was forced to end medical support for its unemployed population. Which suddenly rose and is still huge under the rules of the EU-enforced "austerity". In Greece now it's pay or die. They could instead have defaulted on creditors. Or defaulted ion interest. But the ECB made it clear that it would choke the greek economy when they contemplated that two years later.
But my argument goes further: the EU has imposed market conditions for healthcare firms that which to operate in any country, reducing barriers to entry. It has in practice changed conditions to favour private health care and insurance markets. As these attract more costumers, governments (constrained under the "European Fiscal Compact" of 2013) cut spending on universal healthcare, degrading its quality and pushing more people, from among those capable of paying, to the private sector. It's a self-reinforcing loop that ultimately leaves a bare-bones public healthcare system unable to adequately serve the poorer portion of the population.
- What is wrong with making the education process similar is that, to start with, different countries have different needs, and a one-size-fits-all approach wasted efficiency in throwing away features that were most adequate for each different society. But worse that that one-time hit, was the creation of an "education market logic" for students across the EU. Some countries like the UK had already taken the lead in trying to attract paying students to their universities. Now that logic has spread across the EU. I ask you: what is the purpose of state-sponsored education? To provide for the needs of society, or to pamper to the individualistic needs of each student? One leads to an happy outcome for all parties involved, the other to mismatches, frustrations and shortages. There are good reasons for states to manage the number of openings for each type of course. But the EU's court of justice has deemed that an illegal restriction. Consider
this case: "Restriction on enrolment by non-resident students for university courses in the public health field – Justification – Proportionality – Risk to the quality of education in medical and paramedical matters – Risk of shortage of graduates in the public health sectors". The ECJ ruled against one region of Belgium that provided free higher education to residents, that they had to allow citizens from anywhere in the EU to take advantage of it. This is a way to force all states, one by one, to start charging tuition fees to cover the costs of the courses, as their most expensive courses (medicine, in this case) are overwhelmed by foreign students seeking a cheaper education. Again, a race to the bottom, this time in terms of ending free tuition. In this case the EU's court even managed to take a piss on the UN's International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, by simply disregarding the belgian argument about the lack of reources to comply with financing free education to every EU student that might want to take advantage of it, and therefor endangering the more limited mission of supplying that education to members of this belgian community.
- Finally, the poor-people vs. wealthy people should be obvious to anyone who considers the priority the EU puts on markets. But I'll be happy to hold a much lenghtied discussion on that if someone else wants to have one.
And as far as Norway goes, while we're not inside the EU, we are part of the EEA, and thus are bound the EU's Human Rights Court, we get and adopt most of the directives and rules from the EU -- without any say in how they're created, and the oil extraction business is quite competitive. Everyone can participate, and e.g. both American, Italian, Swedish and Norwegian companies are doing it. Yeah, we've been lucky with having oil, but I don't see how that has anything to do with our relationship to the politics of the EU?
The politics of the EU benefit the existing owners of capital. The "investors". Your country was wealthy at the start of this current modus operandi. Its sovereign fund has only gotten wealthier. This is a creditor's economy. It can't last as the debtors start rebelling politically, mind you.
Exactly. I have no doubt that the EU is heavily influenced by corporate lobbyists. But I have also no doubt that their influence on single independent governments would be even worse.
1 - It's far more expensive for corporations to finance lobbying with 28 governments (they have to buy not just influence, but knowlege of the local environment, and involve many more people) than to carry out their corruption just in one place.
2 (and perhaps more important) - the EU's single market promotes M&A, the creation of corporate giants for the sake of "competition" with the rest of the world. The end result of course is lack of competition in the EU, but pretend you don't see that... These larger corporations can "invest" more resources on corruption than smaller, country-size corporations, and do not have to fight against many other competitors in the process.
