The European Union

[Akka]

I never said it did, but that doesn't mean that the "not nothing" was the EU, because it wasn't. And the quoted text was talking about the EU.

Pointless technicality without any relevance. The EEC was the EU in all but name, just like France didn't suddendly disappear when it changed from "L'État Français" to "République Française".
Stop playing dumb just to win on the Internet.

 

[Kyriakos]

Cameron should have done as he did in the first ep of that Dark Mirror show, tbh.

 

[innonimatu]

Today wars have changed, so the only thing the EU states would ask of Julien and Rudolf is to support a defensive war (for example in Estonia), not to fight in it. Also no one in western Europe wants an offensive war. But as the Munich agreements proved, a defensive pact isn't very useful if your allies don't care about you

To claim that european countries no longer engage in offensive wars is wrong. What was the war against Libya but an offensive war?

It is true that governments dare not involve conscript soldiers on those offensive wars.

Right now, the Italian economy is held aloft by investors who expect there to not be immediate elections and, because of obvious risk, expect better returns than they might have two weeks ago.

It is not the italian economy. It is the italian banks. When have we allowed the financial companies to become equivalent to "the economy"? That was when the EU really doomed itself. The lack of democracy had already made me oppose it, but the massive loss of popular support came from this focus on defending financial speculators (described as "investors") and sacrificing the common people to those.

I see your point of expanding the scope of politics. In a clincal theory - that would be another alternative to protectionism and globalization as it is. It just seems to be bound to also be expanding the scope of apolitical power, and hence just influencing how exactly globalization as it is goes on. Rather than putting a stop to the undesirable effects of it. Which, to remind everyone, is a drastic decoupling of productivity and income in developed nations.

Yes, that is the immediate reason for this "populist" rebellion. Wealth is getting concentrated, and people do notice. This obviously happens, in our modern societies where most people are employees and "consumers", when the share of profit rises and that of labor is lowered. Which just so happens to be the official economic strategy of the EU.
The enablers of this divergence are not the technicians who set up automation or improve productivity. History is rife with periods, most notably the 30 years after WW2, where enormous rises in productivity were accompanied by steady or even increased rises in compensation for laborers. The change, after the 70s, was the result of political choices. There are alternatives, and the argument that labor compensation cannot be higher is a lie. That lie is backed on the supposition that competition between countries would lead corporations to move to countries with lower taxes and laws hostile to workers, a race to the bottom for workers, a race to the top for owners. The obvious solution is to break that excuse by ending the possibility of these companies doing business across borders without being taxed, or without being forced to do productive work in the country where they sell. The possible methods to to that are many and do not necessarily involve heavy protectionism. The thing is, the EU's priorities in improving "business conditions" are always biased against workers. Talk of countering the "problems of globalization" has produced nothing but talk. Thus the stage is set for the obvious solution: protectionism and those who will back it. Or at least say they will.

 

[AdrienIer]

To claim that european countries no longer engage in offensive wars is wrong. What was the war against Libya but an offensive war?

I have a different view on the Lybian war. IMO it was Sarkozy trying to cover his illegal 2007 presidential campaign, funded by Ghadafi and the Lybian state. He hoped that all traces of it would be lost in the chaos that came after. The Lybian state is in no condition to make advantageous trade deals to us : the actual outcome of the war favors almost no one except him.

 

[innonimatu]

@innonimatu
Great globalization post. A bit too edgy in parts for my taste, but I really liked how you worked out the principle issue. However, what is the alternative? That alternative can only be protectionism. You can only take back national control of your economy by re-nationalizing it. And you can only do that by favoring domestic providers / blocking foreign ones.
Is this the vision you have? Economic powerhouses like the EU and the USA re-nationalizing their economies? Hm... I have to admit one thing. The most important reason why protectionism is viewed as an economic death-nail is that if you are the only one doing it, others are bound to cut you out of the world economy. But if "everyone" is doing it (or simply the economic power-houses) there is no one left to cut you out...

Really, I am not sure what to think of this. But if such a thing could work, it is clear that our political elites would have to be forced into that direction. Because they are pathologically unable to develop new visions for society, and they are twice as unable when those visions require a global approach. They just run with the rhythm of the world and try to adapt.

Protectionism is always a matter of degree. Every country in the world today is protectionist of some local interests. Every one. But in out talk what we mean (I think we all agree) is a return to the pre-WTO/GATT environment, where each country has several trade deals, negotiated independently and according to the local requirements, and relatively high tariffs by default outside those deals. This indeed allows a country's government to actually control its economy and tweak the split of income, either through taxation or intervention in the "labour market". It was the recipe used during the post-war decades, and it worked. Not only for the economic powerhouses but also for the smaller countries. The european nations, Japan before it was a powerhouse, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore...
During the asian financial crisis at the turn of the century, it was the protectionist countries, especially the ones that had not "opened" their financial sectors, that better weathered the crisis. Despite that the pressure for "opening finance" was kept up, and the europeans did it. With catastrophic results. There are sectors of the economy that are total folly to "opened" to international intervention,and finance is chief among those, because it is one with the downside that it that can be used to hold governments economically and politically hostage (as we see today), and with no upside at all!
So, we don't need protectionism in everything. But we do need a return to the selective protectionism of the 1950s-70s. That's where Trump was smart in his calls for "smart protectionism". Wether he follows up on that or not we'll see, but if he does, the example will be too strong to hide and the narrative presented in Europe for the "single market" and "trade deals" will collapse, shown in its full irrationality by contrast. That will have electoral consequences, and force a change of political elites. The ones that are today are too tarnished, too sold out (or in some cases too stupid) to change by themselves.

I have a different view on the Lybian war. IMO it was Sarkozy trying to cover his illegal 2007 presidential campaign, funded by Ghadafi and the Lybian state. He hoped that all traces of it would be lost in the chaos that came after. The Lybian state is in no condition to make advantageous trade deals to us : the actual outcome of the war favors almost no one except him.

No one claimed that offensive wars are for national economic gain.I'm just pointing out that it was an offensive war, and the population did not block it.

 

[Akka]

The lack of democracy had already made me oppose it

What lack of democracy ?
You constantly rave about it, but the fact is, and it was repeatedly pointed, everything in the EU comes from elected officials.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Pointless technicality without any relevance. The EEC was the EU in all but name, just like France didn't suddendly disappear when it changed from "L'État Français" to "République Française".
Stop playing dumb just to win on the Internet.

No it's not a pointless technicality at all. The EEC was an economic union (the clue is in the name), not a political and legal one as the EU is. Well... why am I even explaining this. You know that the EU is not the same thing as any institution that preceded it, and if any of those preceding institutions managed to prevent war for 40 years then the credit should be given to them, not to something that quite literally didn't exist until 1993. And you can shove your last sentence back up the hole it came out of thanks.

 

[innonimatu]

What lack of democracy ?
You constantly rave about it, but the fact is, and it was repeatedly pointed, everything in the EU comes from elected officials.

Is that so? Then you would agree with the EU firing all non-elected officials and bureaucrats working for it, effective immediately? If nothing comes out of them...

 

[Agent327]

That would be impossible - if only for legal reasons.

Semantics. No relation whatsoever to the argument itself.

In any argument the meaning of words is rather important/ Essential, one might say. And you didn't argue against it. Which is both good and accurate. But you may call that semantics.

As conceded before, it is true that there is an argument to be had that NATO can not be relied upon. But that only calls for a European Nato. Not a European Union. The rest is .. pointless sentimentalism Togetherness blablabla. No serious effort to engage with the actual real world. No recognition whatsoever for what you are even as a whole advocating. Basically, fluffy ideological talk lacking any substance.
You may as well tell good-night-stories in a kindergarden.

Meanwhile, no EU country has gone to war with another. Which can be said of NATO as well, but there have been incidents. Speaking of good-night stories, expecting the EU to transform into a (strictly) military allaince - besides not being a very good idea in itself -, would be like that. It sort of runs counter to the whole federal idea of the EU, where each country likes to pretend it has a veto right. Imagine trying to keep up a military alliance of EU size like that.

 

[AdrienIer]

Is that so? Then you would agree with the EU firing all non-elected officials and bureaucrats working for it, effective immediately? If nothing comes out of them...

Every state has unelected bureaucrats working for it. They're called ministry employees and without them no state can function properly. But in the EU just like in a normal state the main deciders are elected, or nominated by an elected person/assembly.

 

[innonimatu]

Every state has unelected bureaucrats working for it. They're called ministry employees and without them no state can function properly. But in the EU just like in a normal state the main deciders are elected, or nominated by an elected person/assembly.

My answer was a jab, of course, against a claim I know to be false. In no modern state does everything come from elected officials.

But the EU is particularly bad in that department. I've had it said to me by two of those supposed deciders, MPs in the EP (and these were from "pro-european" party, mind you), that the local bureaucrats sought to torpedo their every move and always showed up in meetings with their own paperwork claiming that all was done and the commissions should just endorse it. Technicians know best and all that...

 

[Akka]

Is that so? Then you would agree with the EU firing all non-elected officials and bureaucrats working for it, effective immediately? If nothing comes out of them...

That's completely nonsensical, and as your post right above shows, it wasn't even supposed to be taken seriously.

I notice that you just claim a lack of democracy, but it's still an empty claim.
Instead of wishing for the destruction of an actual democratic entity which has the potential, if used correctly, to protect our rights, you should instead wish for it to be used well.

No it's not a pointless technicality at all. The EEC was an economic union (the clue is in the name), not a political and legal one as the EU is. Well... why am I even explaining this. You know that the EU is not the same thing as any institution that preceded it, and if any of those preceding institutions managed to prevent war for 40 years then the credit should be given to them, not to something that quite literally didn't exist until 1993. And you can shove your last sentence back up the hole it came out of thanks.

I have nothing to shove back, you continue to act as if a change of name in 1993 meant that something brand new came into being. The ideas and processes were the same, it's just a serie of steps in a continuous entity that just happened to alter its branding.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It's possible to disagree with someone else's opinion without accusing them of playing dumb, as if that is the only reason why anyone could possibly disgree with you.

But the fact remains that the EU, as formed by the Maaaaastricht treaty in 1992, or 93, bears little relation to any of its forebears as they existed in the 50s, 60s or 70s. That it evolved out of them is not in question.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The challenge at the UK Supreme Court to the High Court ruling that the:

(a) UK government cannot immediately apply to leave the EU
because that would change the UK law on exit in two years time;

and

(b) UK law should only be changed by the UK Parliament,

is amazing.

Vast quantities of time has been spent on obscure legal precedents about the Crown perogative (which is of questionable relevance
now as the UK supreme court is not bound by precedent), and the status of various historic documents has been discussed.

IMHO the High Court's decision on (b) is correct, but that is currently invalidated by the UK being in the EU where, because EU law
overides member state law, the EU can change the law in the UK, without the approval of the UK Parliament, so leaving the EU restores (b).

I.e The case that the government can not immediately send the Article 50 letter because that'd un-apply EU law in 2 years time thereby remaking UK law,
without Parliamentary approval, is really that the UK goverment should not be able to stop the EU making UK law without the UK Parliament's consent.

And that ignores the unique history:

(x) the UK parliament passed the law for the referendum,
(y) David Cameron (the former Prime Minister) promised/warned us that if we voted Leave he would send the letter re Article 50
(z) The UK referendum result was Leave.

It is not as if the UK government is asking for any general precedent to make law by the Crown perogative.

 

[innonimatu]

This should probably be commented on on the brexit thread. But I want to add another thing about that wrangling going on in London's courts now: the law itself, the treaty the UK entered into and that parliament long confirmed into british law, provides for an exit and the UK's government is seeking such an exit according to that treaty and therefore according to the existing law. Nothing is being changed, the law is being applied as is. What would be the point of the treaty having an "exit clause" if it could not be invoked?

The High Court delivered a political ruling but was judicially wrong, I believe. It could have opposed a simple denouncement of the treaty (which the UK is also able to do as a sovereign state, just leave and to hell with article 50). But it should never oppose the mere application of one of the clauses of the treaty that is in force (invocation of article 50), while falsely claiming that changes to the domestic law that enforced the treaty are the issue. This is deceit and hypocrisy by those judges. The law that enforced membership of the UK in the EU, and the whole aquis communitaire, must logically also include the exit clause that is part of the treaty, and the right to act on it.

 

[EnglishEdward]

You are quite correct, Innonimatu. I should have posted it in the other thread.

 

[Traitorfish]

The British Supreme Court operates on a common law basis, though, so "the law as is" might not be an applicable category. You'd have to first establish whether the case was determined by statute alone, and in a common law system that effectively means turning it over to the courts to see if they want to get involved, and if so, how far.

 

[Verbose]

It's possible to disagree with someone else's opinion without accusing them of playing dumb, as if that is the only reason why anyone could possibly disgree with you.

But the fact remains that the EU, as formed by the Maaaaastricht treaty in 1992, or 93, bears little relation to any of its forebears as they existed in the 50s, 60s or 70s. That it evolved out of them is not in question.

Makes it sound as if the UK was not involved in this process, and somehow unaware.

 

[FriendlyFire]

No one claimed that offensive wars are for national economic gain.I'm just pointing out that it was an offensive war, and the population did not block it.

Or the real question was is it justified ?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Makes it sound as if the UK was not involved in this process, and somehow unaware.

I don't see how it does given that I didn't say anything about that at all. Does it also make it sound as if bananas aren't yellow, just because I didn't specifically say that they are?