How do you stop a new EU treaty?

[Spiffor]

Well, me being for harmonised budgetary policy is a personal opinion, but I think it is only common sense when there is a common monetary policy (the monetarist dogma hits the whole €-zone because of the ECB's objectives). I favor the idea of the EU raising some taxes immediately to finance its own policies, but I sure don't want national taxes to disappear.

Heck, in an age where intrastate regions get more and more power in whole Europe, it would be absurd to centralize all the tax money somewhere.

But I really think that the EU as a whole should define the role devoted to itself and those devoted to the nations. What you said about "but if a country doesn't want..." made me think of this example:

------- Let's just say Blair has put some purely internal reform to referendum. 60% vote yes, but the majority of Aberystwyth has voted against. Should the reform not pass ? Should Aberystwyth "opt out" ? How can it opt out when the reform can only concern the UK as a whole ? (such as getting rid of the Chambers of Lords ?) -------

In many circumstances, there is no "opt out" being possible, but a do or don't. That's what happening with the EU enlargement for example. In such circumstances, any country has a veto power. When we'll be 25, you should explain me how we'll be able to move on on any delicate point with such system.

[Drogue]

You won't be able to move on any delecate positions. With regards to your example, I see it as a matter of size. Something as small as Aberystwyth has much more to gain from integration than anything it will have to provide. That is because some things work better on a larger scale, like public services, tax, defence, etc. However when it comes to nations, few things, IMHO, work better on a an even larger scale. Defence would be one, but fiscal and monetary policy, for the mostpart, doesn't. I'm all for devolving public services, so that local authorities get more power, as it is more efficient. Enlarging it even more would be so burocratic and inefficient that it would be unteneable, IMHO. The ECBs Monetarist policies are a large reason for my hesitation in joining the Euro. The Bank of England do a good job as it is

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, me being for harmonised budgetary policy is a personal opinion, but I think it is only common sense when there is a common monetary policy (the monetarist dogma hits the whole €-zone because of the ECB's objectives). I favor the idea of the EU raising some taxes immediately to finance its own policies, but I sure don't want national taxes to disappear.

Heck, in an age where intrastate regions get more and more power in whole Europe, it would be absurd to centralize all the tax money somewhere.

But I really think that the EU as a whole should define the role devoted to itself and those devoted to the nations. What you said about "but if a country doesn't want..." made me think of this example:

------- Let's just say Blair has put some purely internal reform to referendum. 60% vote yes, but the majority of Aberystwyth has voted against. Should the reform not pass ? Should Aberystwyth "opt out" ? How can it opt out when the reform can only concern the UK as a whole ? (such as getting rid of the Chambers of Lords ?) -------

.

well my impression is that what concerns many in the UK is having the UK reduced to the role of Aberystwyth. Aberystwyth isnt sovereign. The UK is. Ergo it cant be forced to accept anything against its will. Here in the US for example, a change can be made to the constitution (following appropriate procedure) against the will of any particular state. OTOH if someone wants to make a change to NAFTA, each member (canada, the US, and Mexico) must agree. That cause NAFTA is fundamentally different from a federal state (such as each MEMBER of NAFTA) Its a treaty among sovereigns. If Canada and the US wish to change their relationship, it must be hashed out by the civil servants, under the direction of the elected leaders. Not by elected "north american" parliamentarians.

Only one level can be sovereign. We found that out the hard way, in 1861. Y'all have to decide which level is going to be sovereign and proceed from their.

[Az]

Personally, I think that Drogue's proposition will lead to a hardly workable, half-assed confederation that is bound to either transform into a federal superstate, or fall apart.

[Drogue]

My proposal basically keeps it as it is ATM. I think it is working fine. I don't want no treaty there, but then I don't want a superstate either. It may grow to have it's own defence force, it may reduce to being a NAFTA style treaty. Anything between the two is fine with me.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Only one level can be sovereign. We found that out the hard way, in 1861. Y'all have to decide which level is going to be sovereign and proceed from their.

To me, the choice is obvious. It's the EU. It's the only way for the European countries to keep their status as economic and geopolitic powers.
Now, I'm all for decentraliziation on plenty competences (I actually think most competences of today's member states should remain theirs), but I want the EU as a whole to be the one which decides such competences. I have no problem with having UK or France reduced to the role of Aberyswyth: what counts is that Europe moves on and becomes great once again.

[Az]

Spiffor:

[The Mad Monk]

The United States learned its lessons the hard way, two hundred years ago when these terms were still relatively new.

The EU will need the ability to tax directly, and to enforce that tax over local objections. That necessitates a federal level police force.

[Drogue]

And is one of the reasons I disagree. I think a lot of small nations can work more effectively and efficiently than one large one. Therefore I would want the nations to be Sovereign, and there to be treaties between them. I think that with one large free market is better than having a superstate, which will probably be more regulated.

[Az]

I think a lot of small nations can work more effectively and efficiently than one large one.

I don't think it's correct. My father, a fleet exploitation engineer, said that in complex systems the most efficient exploitation of every part of the system doesn't necessary lead to overall best efficiency.

[Drogue]

Your father is right, it doesn't. However the extra burocracy from trying to run a nation the size of Europe would make it less efficient. A CAS (complex adaptive system) runs itself, so does not have that problem. A CAS is a perfect situation, and like a perfectly free market, does not exist. There is burocracy and inefficiency to factor in to the results from the CAS. With that factored it, I think a lot of small nations will be more efficient. That last bit is open to debate though, whether the efficiency gain from a lack of burocracy outweighs the gain from the larger system.

It is similar to the free market vs state run economy. A CAS can show that a perfectly state run economy, that is one without burocracy at all, is more efficient than a perfectly free market one. However, obviously, a state run economy has far more burocracy than a free market, which runs itself. Therefore it becomes a matter of individual situations whether the efficiency from the lack of burocracy outweighs the efficiency of being a planned economy.

Personally, I think with all the externalities of each situation, the best choice for both is somewhere near the centre. That is, having nations the size of nations, rather than continents, and rather than individual people. What treaties those nations sign is a different matter, and free trade between nations has been shown to increase efficiency, which is why I support the EEC and EU as a trading bloc. However when it comes to nation status, and the ability to make individual states conform, and to charge it's own direct tax, I think it is better left at a nation level.

Putting a nation like the US into the mix changes thigns further though. If all nations were small, but equally sized, then this works fine. However if competing for power against a large other nation is important, then increasing the size matters more.

This is all a long winded way of saying that some things work better on a small scale, and some on a large scale. What you think is best for each is a matter of opinion, but what happens in a perfect CAS does not necessarily prove either way. It also depends on your objective, whether it be power (from defence to winning the World Cup), freedom (the ability to choose your own laws and systems) or prosperity (the wealth and happiness of your citizens); and on externalities like what other nations are doing.

[Az]

As logistics, and communication technology progress, the more centralization is favored.

[Drogue]

Very true. However until we get telepathy (ie. perfect communication) there will still be limits on the size that is most efficient. I think for the next 20 years a superstate won't happen, and won't be a good idea. I think then it would start to become a good idea, but won't happen (at least not with the UK in it). I think it will be 30 or 40 years before the UK is for a superstate, if it ever will be. And that is the failing of democracy Take the Sun (newspaper) out of the picture, and it becomes a possibility par earlier

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Spiffor

To me, the choice is obvious. It's the EU. It's the only way for the European countries to keep their status as economic and geopolitic powers.
Now, I'm all for decentraliziation on plenty competences (I actually think most competences of today's member states should remain theirs), but I want the EU as a whole to be the one which decides such competences. I have no problem with having UK or France reduced to the role of Aberyswyth: what counts is that Europe moves on and becomes great once again.

By great do you just mean French foreign policy with more clout.

I thought the EU was about peace security and living standards not about being great.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by TheStinger
By great do you just mean French foreign policy with more clout.
I thought the EU was about peace security and living standards not about being great.

There are two big (and recent) achievements done by the EU, in which the EU speak as one voice. Guess what: only by speaking with one voice can the EU defend the interest of its members...

So far, two significant steps have been achieved:
- The EU speaks with one voice in trade negociations (there is no national sovereignity on trade anymore). It allowed us to actually defend our interests in the last rounds, and to be equals with the US. Compare this with the Uruguay Round of the early 90's, where each country spoke for itself: each country could only get little concessions from the US demands, and there was no way to further negociate after that. I happen to oppose EU trade policies ("you poor countries open your markets absolutely. We will continue to close ours"), but when the EUParliament finally becomes powerful, we will at last be able to weight on such policies.

- the Euro-zone has one currency. It allows the national economies not to be completely dependent on the US Dollar, but to depend on a currency whose Central Bank has the interest of the EU in mind (or rather, is supposed to). I disagree with the objectives of the ECB too, as I think growth should take precedence over price stability. However, the aims of the central bank don't budge because they have been decided in difficult-to-change treaties. Countries now can't agree on other rules, and thus the outdated objectives of the ECB remain the same; if there was one single organism to decide the aims of the ECB, it'll be much more adapted to the economic realities of the EU (the aims of a central bank are given by the politicians; the Bank is only independent in the ways it uses to reach such aims).

---

Now, what we don't have is a serious common research policy. We are struggling between each other to get the best brains of our European neighbours and of our former colonies. Such internal struggle doesn't allow us to have a cohesive research, and we are lagging behind the US, and even Japan.

We don't have a serious common diplomacy. As such, our diplomatic choices during crises are completely dependent of what Washington is doing. We are in no situation to create a diplomatic climate that is good for our interests. We are only in the situation to take the best we can out of the climate created by Washington.

However, we do have a Common Agricultural Policy which only continues to exist because the French government is using all his weight to keep it working. You can expect the Polish government to defend the CAP staunchly too, when Poland joins next year. For some reason, I think a one-voice EU would shut up the CAP pretty quickly

[TheStinger]

I completely agree with the one voice trading policy, although the EU is as guilty as the US in closing its markets to others especialy developing nations.

If there was one diplomatic voice nothing would happen ever because the line taken would have to be so neutral so as not to offend differing EU nations.

For example you just have to look at the mess with Zimbabwe or with the current attempts to try and deal with the Malaysian PM's attack on Jews

[Drogue]

I think some more co-ordination on diplomacy would be good, since it then has more clout, but seeing some of the differences in Foreign Policy recently (from Zimbabwe to Iraq) anything more than that could prove a disaster. Either nations get offended, (and maybe leave) or policy is watered down a lot.

I agree getting rid of the CAP would be a good reason for further integration, but with the ECBs policies so out of tune with the needs of nations (we have low inflation but need growth) joining the Euro would not be a good idea for the UK at the moment. The ECB is nowhere near flexible enough yet.

As for research, with so many different languages in Europe, which would not disadvantage the multi-lingual continent, but would be a major problem for the UK. With a common language it would be a great idea, but ATM, I can see the UK sharing research with the US much more, because there isn't the language barrier there.

[DanS]

Now, what we don't have is a serious common research policy. We are struggling between each other to get the best brains of our European neighbours and of our former colonies. Such internal struggle doesn't allow us to have a cohesive research, and we are lagging behind the US, and even Japan.

Why would you want a common research policy? American businesses have been steadily increasing their R&D, which requires a response (or not) from European businesses. By and large, the private sector controls R&D in the US and even moreso in Japan. Government direction of these efforts only potentially misallocates funds with no corrective mechanism.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Drogue
As for research, with so many different languages in Europe, which would not disadvantage the multi-lingual continent, but would be a major problem for the UK. With a common language it would be a great idea, but ATM, I can see the UK sharing research with the US much more, because there isn't the language barrier there.

Maybe your scientists should learn to speak English then so they can communicate with the rest of us

[Drogue]

Your scientific research is all done in English? I presumed that, when other nations were not involved, it would be done in your native language?

DanS: Some government funded research is needed, on sensitive issues, to prevent bias. Companies that pay for studies are usually looking to prove a particular point, and the evidence will reflect that. For example, government studies are needed on issues like GM/Organic crops, as the only decent studies we have are either funded by corporations trying to sell them or lobby groups trying to stop corporations selling them. An independant study would be nice.

[DanS]

The lingua franca of research is English, IIRC.

Some government funded research is needed, on sensitive issues, to prevent bias. Companies that pay for studies are usually looking to prove a particular point, and the evidence will reflect that. For example, government studies are needed on issues like GM/Organic crops, as the only decent studies we have are either funded by corporations trying to sell them or lobby groups trying to stop corporations selling them. An independant study would be nice.

The vast majority of R&D is done to improve products or create new products. It's not advocacy. Where science is done to prove something (safety of a product, for instance), the science is regulated anyway. Because of this, you're treating a peripheral issue as though it is a central issue.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Drogue
Your scientific research is all done in English? I presumed that, when other nations were not involved, it would be done in your native language?

99,9% of the interesting science is published in English. More or less all conferences are in English exclusively, etc etc. It's funny, scientists from other countries may live in Sweden for up to ten years without learning much Swedish because at work it's all in English and as a scientist life is all work

EDIT: Maybe I should add that even the French scientists speak English

[Drogue]

Originally posted by DanS
The lingua franca of research is English, IIRC.

That's what I thought for publication, but I didn't realise it would be almost impossible to be a scientist in, say France or Germany, if you spoke no English. I stand corrected.

Originally posted by DanS
The vast majority of R&D is done to improve products or create new products. It's not advocacy. Where science is done to prove something (safety of a product, for instance), the science is regulated anyway. Because of this, you're treating a peripheral issue as though it is a central issue.

That is true, although with many important issues nowadays, it is a little more than just a peripheral issue IMHO. Much research is needed on things that need to be public funded. Also, this goes to the state of the university system. We have public universities, so any research done there, even paid for by a company, is something to do with the government. We need a far better university system, since they are falling in world research rankings. Even universities like Oxford are falling rapidly in terms of number of publications. I am not sure if European integration could help this, but something needs to be done.

[DanS]

I am not sure if European integration could help this

I don't see why it would.

[laurentius]

...I still think we should revive latin for our official language, actually I have even started learning it again so I'm ready when this happens

[Paris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
why? maybe they like being an independent state. National sovereignty hasnt been quite the disaster for Britain that it has been for most of the continental states.

Bad example: it is like you said that "California must be serparate from US and being indepedent state"! If Britain being indepedent, then they will have to face a giant market on its door without can do anything. Another example: is it possible for Canada to ignore US market? Everybody talks about 'financial difficulties', 'ancient financial structure of EU', 'high unemployment', 'unormalize tax systems' etc... For how long can these things remain the same? And why the countries which are trying to be one state can always having 'open EU' or 'open doors' for everyone other member which doesn't accept these movements? The disaster will come if Britain will keep behaviour as a 'US state' and not as 'EU state'! Maybe Euope will lost a member (nothing tragedy was happened when EU lost Norway) but for sure Britain will lost everything!

[Heresson]

Some problems with EU treaty
-it diminishes the role of smaller states, and especially of two middle ones, Poland and Spain exactly. In fact, Chirac or someone said once it's a punishment for Spain (and Poland) for supporting USA in Iraq conflict. Spain and Poland are against the treaty, and Poland may veto it.

Another problem is... Liechtenstein. The family of its ruler had large land posessities in Czech Republic before the war, but they were confiscated after the war, as Liechtenstein was considered by Prague an alliant of Germany (which isn't true, afaik); Liechtenstein demands returning it, otherwise it won't allow dragging common economic zone over 10 new EU members, and funds for the new members will be lost.
Since the war up to today, there are no diplomatical relations between Liechtenstein and Czechia and Slovakia.

[Spiffor]

Heresson:
I don't understand. What exactly can Lichtenstein do to the new members ? What right has this non-member in the EU ?

[Gangerolf]

it's about the EEA-treaty

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Heresson:
I don't understand. What exactly can Lichtenstein do to the new members ? What right has this non-member in the EU ?

I don't know what is that right, but it has it. I have a thought, but I'm not sure if it's right, so I'll not state it.