The future of the European Union

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by LafayetteBis, Apr 4, 2017.

  1. Ole Ole

    Ole Ole Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2016
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male

    Trade Vs USA or Poland some like USA Vs Poland and Germany thus Three gonna Money trade ?!
     
  2. Ole Ole

    Ole Ole Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2016
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Trade by Trump within USA two in EU and two in Pacific ? Summer 2018 is maybe end of Life.

    Two trade in EU by Trump within USA 2017 and 2018 ?
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
  3. Otern

    Otern Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2017
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    No, once in the Commission, it's no longer national conniving among EU members, as the states these commissioners come from, lose any influence of their commissioners once they're on the Commission. That is to say, the commissioners have no accountability to their respective states once they're on. Of course they need to not be total nutjobs, or they'd never get proposed by the EU Council at all. But once on, they are outside of the EU Council's control. Unchallenged power corrupts, and when there's no way to change the direction of the Commission, from the public, it turns into a beast of its own.

    Your statement would be true if the EU Council were being the executive power of the EU. Then it would be national conniving among EU members. But it's not. The EU Council is the face of the EU, but they're not the brain. Donald Tusk is nowhere near as important as Jean Claude Juncker. Tusk is to the EU, what Jens Stoltenberg is to NATO.

    So far, there's still some national sovereignty left in the European states, but it's constantly being chipped away, one small piece at the time by the Commission, because they can afford to play the long game, since they're not being challenged.

    Also, if one aspect of the democratic flaws were to be fixed. That is to say the EU Parliament would nominate Commissioners, rather than the EU Council, we still face the problem with the parliamentary parties being disproportionally in favor to the federalization of the EU, compared to the support of a federal EU among the public. (A pretty similar problem in Norway, 80% of the population is opposed to EU membership, but our two largest parties, Labor and the Conservatives are in favor). Of course, this is not the EU's fault, but has more to do with how uninformed the public is, and how out of touch parties are with the public.
     
  4. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are not making sense.

    Try harder with the English ...
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
  5. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, come off it - will you!

    They are human. Of course they can be pressured to vote in certain ways. It all depends upon the nature of the issue/question to be settled.

    Moreover, IF the EU had a constitution, then this sort of "commission" would be illegal. Only those from a Legislature should be able to "make and vote laws". Only members of Judiary the qualifications for which have been reviewed by parliamentarians are bonafide members of such a "Supreme Court".

    The more you write about it, the more you make the EU-confederation look hamstrung.

    I gather that is your purpose ...
     
  6. Otern

    Otern Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2017
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it's not my purpose. The EU is not hamstrung, but the member states are beginning to be it. The EU is in fact really efficient, but they're efficient in a non-democratic way, and even with improvement to the democratic institutions in the EU, they're still facing the challenge of vastly different cultures, with different values. Some of these values will be pushed aside, when challenged by the values shared by the largest population, even though there's not anything WRONG with either.

    Also, the EU has a constitution. The Lisbon Treaty. They just don't call it a constitution, since that was rejected in referendums. They found a loophole, and exploited it. The Commission failed at the great step towards Europe, due to public opposition, so they took a smaller step towards it instead. But they never changed course, because they can keep doing these small steps until the United States of Europe is a reality.
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/inddem/docs/papers/14 point summary.pdf
    Look at this. No attempt to address the issues of state sovereignty, or the democratic deficiencies in the Commission, but rather give more powers to the Commission, and reject the idea of nation states. It's clear the Commission can't be persuaded off its course towards a Federal Europe, no matter how much opposition it meets.

    It's also wrong to call it a confederation, a more correct term would be confederacy/federation hybrid, since they do allow some self governance among member states, but still have a central government with an extreme amount of power over its member states fiscal policy, law, and other internal affairs.
     
  7. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As long as the direction is right, who cares about the "small steps".

    We in the EU are coming out of the worst Recession since the 1930s. The EU was very unprepared for it, because its leadership thought that (with the advent of the Euro), nothing could go wrong. Well, it did. And badly.

    So, the reconstruction of Demand is going to take a lot longer than we thought, and in the interim some knot-heads in the ex Eastern-Europe have taken advantage of the patent ignorance of their people who haven't ever had any real understanding of "democratic values".
    When the Soviet Union came apart, they had nowhere else to go. So, they jumped at the invitation to become a member of the EU.

    They still have a lot to learn about democratic values and even how capitalism works (and doesn't work) ...
     
  8. Otern

    Otern Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2017
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    And now we're reaching the core of my argument.

    You may think the direction is "right". I do not. This is a value question, when it comes down to it. You want a federal Europe, I want an independent Norway. And the thing is, the support for a Federal Europe is shrinking, especially in the west. It's somewhat more understandable Eastern Europe wants it, since they do have a much easier time kickstarting their economy, but this will have a long term cost for them too. For most people in Europe a Federal Europe is not the "Right direction".

    I'm all for bringing Eastern Europe into the warmth, but not if it means a Federal Europe. Let them do their thing, we can do ours, and then cooperate in areas where it's possible without taking sovereignty away from any nation. Polish people are great, and I want some of them to come here and work, but not if it means undercutting wages in the sectors they're most common. And this is happening currently, all over the EU, and the EEA. I don't want "polish jobs" to be a derogatory term for the kind of jobs the Poles end up in here.

    As for the recession. I'm glad we had a social democratic finance minister at the time, rather than the Ayn Rand worshipping EU-proponents in the current government. This made the recession never really hit Norway. We had a well functioning national control over some of the most important aspects of our economy, rather than praying to the Invisible Hand.

    As the communists put way too much faith in the State, the EU puts way too much faith in the Free Market. Both have the lack of respect for national self rule, although the EU is more democratic than the Soviet. The EU, and the neocons and neolibs in the US were so sure the Free Market didn't have its faults, then the recession hit. And yet, they think this is the way to continue. Free Market is great in some regards, but utterly horrible in others, which is why it really shouldn't be "Free", but rather "Open". It should still be possible to trade with everyone, but always have the public in mind, rather than the markets. What's good for the markets is often good for the public, but whenever that's not the case, the public must have priority.

    I'm not against trade, but there should be regulations on it, and what regulations works, is different for each country. For example, Norwegian management of agriculture, will look VASTLY different from Ukrainian. It doesn't mean one is better than the other, but we have very different challenges, so the same rules shouldn't apply to both. Norway is more comparable to Switzerland in this regard, even though the Swiss are leaning way further to the right than we do, we have pretty similar agricultural policies.
     
  9. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,673
    Likes Received:
    8,941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So I know you don't want to see a federal Europe, and despite being a remainer neither do I, but which parts of the EU would you like to keep?
    Mostly I like the common market free trade aspect but as a much larger and more varied economy than yours I can see that it suits us better than you.
    You want tighter border controls and I am happy to accept that so long as they are not so strict as to damage the economy.
    I don't think that from the outside regulations on things like the environment, workers rights and fishing quotas will have such a high priority for my future self serving populist governments, am I mistaken?
     
  10. Otern

    Otern Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2017
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Of the seven institutions of the EU, I'd only want to keep the European Council. And it should work the same way as the Nordic Council. No formal power, but a great way to get different nations together and talk, solve issues, and cooperate. But only if EVERY European nation state is represented. No EU Council without Turkey, Switzerland and Russia added to it. If even Andorra objects to joining, it should either not exist, or change.

    Also, there's already far better organizations in Europe, not having anything to do with the EU. Like the OSCE.

    Sadly, I think you're right about those worker's right, and the environment. Because the entire narrative in the media is all about the dangers of muslim immigration, rather than the socioeconomical issues related to immigration as a whole. So the entire focus will be about stopping those muslims, while still importing too much cheap, low skilled labor force from East European countries, undercutting wages, and still fuel the flames of the radicals.

    Traveling and studying everywhere in Europe would still be possible without the EU, you'd just have to bring a passport, and maybe wait in line for a while at the airport. Minor inconveniences for a luxury. And there would still be open borders between certain European nations. For example there's no reason why Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark shouldn't have open borders to each other. Then we only need passport control on the Danish-German, the Norwegian-Russian, and the Finish-Russian border, and this would of course be financed by all of us. We have a pretty well functioning border with Russia, without it being too hard to travel over it for either of us, so it would work.
     
  11. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't really want to keep any part of the EU to be honest.
    Just nothing it does that can't be done another way.

    I want it to be become voluntary.
    To be a country/office/institution that respects freedom.
    Like a freemasons. At 18 years old you may choose to join the EU. Or not to.
    No obligation and no expectation.
    Pay taxes if you wish to be in, abide by their laws if you wish to stay in and so on. Dual nationality.

    Then it will function as best as it is going to. When everyone involved participates willingly.
     
  12. Otern

    Otern Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2017
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Have to correct myself here. There's already an organization other than the European Council, that is basically what I want it to be.

    The Council of Europe. Not to be confused with the EU Council, the Council of the EU, which are both EU institutions.

    Now, there's a few improvements though. Not really a true Council of Europe until all European states are members, and so far we miss Belarus, Kosovo, and Kazakhstan. (Kazakhstan is a trans continental country, and should be a part of it, just like Georgia, Russia, Armenia, Turkey and so on is a part of it).

    The objection to having Kazakhstan and Belarus in it, is because of their lack of human rights, but I still think they deserve a seat at the table. It might even help out a bit. Talking over issues never really hurt, and the formal power of the Council of Europe doesn't exist, so it would serve as a great diplomatic organization, rather than a political union.
     
  13. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope, it doesn't work that way. The EU is not a smorgasbord where you can pick and chose what you want to eat. A country is either in or out, and must chose.

    For the moment, Norway seems to want the best of both places. In on some aspects of trade, but out on any EU-conventions or even the Euro. (In fact, the Euro will become a de-facto requirement, with no other free-monies allowed. It must be that way for the EU to have financial cohesiveness.)

    So, it it gonna happin' - and when the oil runs out, lotsa luck ... !
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2017
  14. Otern

    Otern Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2017
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Could you at least read up on Norway's oil management before posting a truly bitter, and obviously ignorant post?

    We'll run out of oil eventually. The world know this, Norway know this, our public know this, and our politicians know this.

    And that's why the profits from the oil exploitation, in both Norway, and under Statoil-control in foreign countries are going to the "Pension fund". It's basically where we invest our money, so when the oil runs out, we'll still have plenty of investments everywhere, and keep up the purchasing power to make the transition more manageable. You'll see nothing of that Gulf state luxury, and reckless spending here like in the Gulf states, because the money is seen as a temporary boost. The boost does have an effect on the economy on the average Norwegian, but that's more due to the nature of the high paying jobs offshore, not the oil profits dripping into the pockets of Norwegians. By controlling the oil revenue, in that it doesn't have a direct effect on the average Norwegian, rather indirect, we're more able to handle the loss of it too.

    We're not running headless into an oil drought, like the Gulf states and phosphorous exploiting pacific island states.

    Will we be as rich as we were during the nineties, compared to the rest of the western world? No, but we won't turn into some third world country either. We'll just go back to having comparable economy with Sweden, Iceland, Denmark and Finland. We'll do fine. Hell, Switzerland does fine, without oil. Norway will definitely change in some aspects after the oil, but that doomsday projection you're coming with, is just as ridiculous as the Eurabia conspiracy theorists.

    We will still be a major energy exporter, even after the oil, simply because of our dams. Norway has the geography for cheap electricity, which also means we have an advantage in certain industries with a high energy demand, like alluminium. And then there's the whole Thorium deal. It could very well be the future in clean energy. And we've got some of the largest amount of it.

    Norway was a good place to live before the oil, and there's really no reason to believe that Norway will suddenly turn awful without the oil. Because the oil won't SUDDENLY run out. We're keeping a pretty good track on how much there is, and our national state still has the power to take measures in the transition period from oil, to no oil. As long as we can manage ourselves.
     
  15. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Seems nice, but "the proof is in the pudding".

    Investments are investments - they sometimes succeed and they sometimes turn sour. It all depends upon highly variable economic circumstances*.

    What you are predicting (with amazing confidence) is a "nirvana" that will never fail to sustain the Norwegian economy. Any course in the history of market-economies will acquaint you with the fallacy of that belief ...

    *Moreover, the history of economics has also proven that those who belong to larger market-economies have less of chance of failing.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
  16. Otern

    Otern Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2017
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Seriously, if you can't bother to read, but keep putting words into my mouth, this discussion will lead nowhere. Of course there will be economical trouble in the future, and Norway will also have some of them. But I believe a mixed market economy, that is, social democracy, is the best way to handle these troubles. Like it did in 2007. We didn't even touch the oil money to get out of it, although the investments we made with those oil money previously, were hit somewhat.

    I specifically said we'll not be the richest country in the world for much longer, there's no "nirvana" about that.

    I'm not against market economy in probably most areas. But you can't let the unregulated market loose on natural resources, agriculture, education and health care. Hell, even the EU and the US has come to this conclusion, with their agricultural subsidies.

    FYI, you're not debating a communist here. I'm not rejecting ALL of the aspects of market liberalism, I just think some of it should be regulated, to better prevent and handle a crisis. And to help it being free in areas where total market liberalism would lead to less free market by the construction of monopolies and cartels.
     
  17. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're right, it doesn't work that way.
    It is fail.

    To make a country you have to kill everyone who doesn't want to be a part of it.

    So if your aim is to make a new country, don't include me in your plans unless you are willing to die for them.
    So what ask people to join as a country at all? Why make your membership dependent on mine? Give everyone a choice. Not just "countries" but people.

    Instead of fascism, instead consider liberalism.
    We both put only what we are willing to trade on the table.
    I pick and choose what I want. You pick and choose what you want.
    That which we don't agree on, we respect and don't exchange. That which we do agree on we co-operate towards. A trade is made.

    If you seek to enforce your country on others. Your political ambitions, war is assured.
    Failure is assured. The bigger the country you attempt to build, the faster it will collapse underneath you.
    Force = lose.

    It is mankind's nature to rebel.

    If the EU is inflexible, it will disappear.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
  18. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good debate is a fluid exchange of ideas.

    If you can't take the heat of debate, you'd best not be in this forum.

    Period.

    PS: You're not doing at all bad in the exchange, so I see no reason whatsoever for your above remark.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
  19. Otern

    Otern Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2017
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    You can't have a fluid exchange of ideas if you're attributing ideas to the other side of an issue which they don't have. I've never had the position Norway will do everything absolutely wonderful, outside of the EU. We can still mess up on a lot of issues.

    I don't expect you to agree with me, but I expect you to do an effort in understanding. Hell, we'll probably never agree on whether or not the Federal Europe is a good idea, but there's actually a lot to learn from discussing these issues.

    We've actually had a pretty good discussion, pretty civil. But there's no need to attribute ideas of which one does not have. If you're wondering something, ask, and I'll do by best to answer. But I won't turn to straw man arguments. If that's how you'd like to discuss things, fair enough, but you'll learn nothing, and you'll convince noone.
     
  20. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No doubt, but the overarching idea that you refuse is that a larger economy is greater protection of both consumers and jobs.

    Not much I can say to that fallacy, except that it's sophistry ...
     
  21. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Inefficiency.
    If you want a job done do it yourself.

    The more people you add to the job the more wasteful they become.
    The further you take people away from being directly accountable for their actions... the less they do for their money.

    Bigger = fail in most scenario's.
    Economies of scale cut both ways.
     
  22. afganitia

    afganitia Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Smaller =fail in basically all scenarios. Not enough economic weight, not enough political weight, highly inefficient administration,...

    Better to be big, in almost all curcumstances. Scale economics have largely more benefits than other inconvenients.
     
  23. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense.

    One size does not fit all.


    I don't need economic "weight", political "weight" and I don't need any "administration" at all.
    I just get the job done.
    On my own.

    If I am a window cleaner, there are no economies of scale. Being part of a multi-national window cleaning company just raises the costs of my business. Subscribing to a political party or a union, just raises my costs.
    All I need is my ladder my sponge and my bucket. That's it. All I need.

    Most jobs in the economy are small scale. Because small scale is what works most efficiently. A boutique not a supermarket. A local convenience store not a super market. My local garage not the dealership. This is the core of our economies.
    They may not have the political and economic clout to bribe the EU, but then they don't need to. It is irrelevant to all but the multi-nationals and not in the best interests of the majority to allow or favour only giant scaled operations.

    I went to the Lexus dealership, they asked £3,000 for the repair of my car. The local garage did it for £300.
    Economy of scale.

    Dolphin vs whale. Who gets the fish?
    The big slow one or the little fast one (who can fit between the coral).
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2017
  24. Otern

    Otern Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2017
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    There are advantages to large economies, like cheaper consumer products. And people from poorer countries, will be able to easier get a job in richer countries. The richer countries can then develop more business cheaper, since wages are kept low by the influx of cheap laborers.

    But it's not overall better than smaller economies, neither for consumers, nor workers.

    As an example is the food safety standards in the EU, compared to Norway. We've got way safer food. No salmonella, no antibiotics in our meat, and extremely low rate of e-coli. While Denmark, that has to follow the EU regulations in food production, loses a few children each year due to e-coli and salmonella. So, the consumers aren't really protected. They get the cheap product, but not the safest one.

    Then there's the flexibility of a national state within such a union. Both Greece and Iceland got hit hard by the market crash. But while Iceland could take measures to get back on track, Greece could not, and they're still stuck in a horrible situation, which the EU has done very little to improve. Iceland could manage their own economy, Greece could not.

    Also, the greatest economies in the world couldn't stop the 2007 crash from happening, but the smaller countries, with some kind of control over aspects like natural resources, could stop the worst effects. Norway got out of this way better than any Euro-zone country, as did most of the EU members that were not in the Euro-zone.

    A large economy might give a larger buffer against a crisis, but at the same time, the crisis gets a lot worse once the crisis finally hits. And the lack of national control, makes it much harder to handle the crisis on a national level. The financial crisis has somewhat been "solved" in the EU now, at the benefit of Germany and France, but at the expense of Spain, Portugal and Greece. Smaller countries will get the stick, while the larger will get the carrot, since the political power in a collective union, lies within the majority.

    I'm all for trading with the entire Europe, but it has to be regulated, and I believe the national state is a far better regulator, than the union of national states.
     
  25. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Moving right along ...
     

Share This Page