Article

2004-09-24 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-09-24 12:00:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [11138 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 One problem with the EU is that there are at least two countries in there that think they are God's gift to the planet. Change that attitude and maybe something can come of this "union". But I doubt it.

Posted by Rafael 2004-09-24 12:22:46 AM|| 2004-09-24 12:22:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The problem with the EU is that is exists.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-24 1:04:04 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-24 1:04:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The best thing that could happen to the non-Phrench, non-German nations of Europe is for the EU to split up.

They need to go back to the Common Market concept and leave the "one government" nonsense where it belongs - out on its ass in the snow.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-09-24 1:04:36 AM|| 2004-09-24 1:04:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 10 nations thought otherwise just a year ago when they joined. All the rest of Europe that applies for membership thinks otherwise than you people.

But hey, I guess all those stupid EasternEuropean don't know what's good for them, they should just listen to Barbara and Sockpuppet instead.

Please tell me laddies, why do you think all these countries joined up? Are they *all* such morons?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 1:37:26 AM|| 2004-09-24 1:37:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Why did they join up? $$$.

And because together they can stop the Froggy takeover.

Posted by someone 2004-09-24 1:50:00 AM|| 2004-09-24 1:50:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Aris, I have no idea why any country would give up its sovereignty to the arrogant, unelected, unaccountable princes in Brussels.

They must think there's something in it for them to make it worthwhile to have France dictating policy to them, while ignoring it herself.

For their sakes, I hope there is. But I've seen no evidence of it so far.

I really feel sorry for Europeans. It appears you're willing to give up liberty for security. I hope for your sake it works out, but I suspect you'll end up with neither.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-09-24 1:55:17 AM|| 2004-09-24 1:55:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Oh, in short because they actually believe it's to their countries' *benefit*. How odd.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 1:56:02 AM|| 2004-09-24 1:56:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 '..It could lead to a multi-layered EU in which different countries adopt different levels of political integration and experiment with different economic models.'

If it's not possible to get everybody to pretty much do the same thing, what's the point of this whole EU exercise then?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-09-24 1:57:03 AM|| 2004-09-24 1:57:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Hey ~~assclown~~ Aris don't insult me. I never have insulted you. I don't think the "citizens" of any of these countries were looking for a "constutition" They are looking for economic federation and equal trade. I doubt very much Poland and most of the ex USSR satelites are looking for German and French masters to dominate them politically afer being under the USSR for so long.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-24 2:00:33 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-24 2:00:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 It's the new craze! Everybody is doing it.
And yes, they are *all* such morons if the citizens of these countries enter the EU without given a chance to vote on it.

Posted by jn1 2004-09-24 2:00:34 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:00:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Oh, in short because they actually believe it's to their countries' *benefit*.

Such as...?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-09-24 2:01:01 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:01:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 last post was directed to someone.

Barbara> Instead of your arrogant presuming attitude about how horrible and stupid and servile us Europeans supposedly are, why the fucking hell don't you try to educate yourself?

"Arrogant"? France dictating policy to us, while ignoring it herself? Get your brain out of those Europhobic tabloids, and out of those xenophobic rags.

Giving up liberty for security? HOW VERY FUCKING ODD, that it was liberty we didn't have *before* we entered the EU. How very fucking odd that Greece inside the EU has its longest period of liberty EVER, as oppose to before when we were nothing but the pawn in the hands of the Great Powers. How very fucking odd that all the other Eastern European countries would prefer to stop being pawns also and choose to become players instead.

The only reason you think that any of us gave up "liberty" by joining the EU is because you don't belong in a nation that has ever been actually deprived of it. Those of us who live in nations that *have* been enslaved, do know the difference pretty well, and we do know that the EU has increased liberty, not diminished it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 2:02:46 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:02:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 doubt very much Poland and most of the ex USSR satelites are looking for German and French masters to dominate them politically afer being under the USSR for so long.

I likewise doubt it. Which should have instead let you known that the EU isn't about the games of domination, it's about preventing games of domination, and substituting them with a framework of law instead.

But hey, keep on with your assumptions. Everyone is "dominated" by the evil Germans and French, and everyone's so fucking hates such domination that they're lining up in the door for the privilege to join us.

if the citizens of these countries enter the EU without given a chance to vote on it.

Yeah, jn1, those nine referendums last year with mostly overwhelming results in favour never happened. Or perhaps they all happened while you were sleeping. But hey that's the level of knowledge about the EU hereabouts.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 2:06:59 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:06:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 I have been monitoring polands views on the EU and it seems to me that they have some serious issues with the Ephew, they dont want to give up military sovergnty and accept the useless weapons that the eu has to offer, to me it seems that the eu says accept what we say or else.

But i guess u figure the polish are pollacks

"But hey, I guess all those stupid EasternEuropean don't know what's good for them",

to me with talk like that, why would they want into something that that would compromise thier security, I only know that Poland is wary of European promises, Russian promises as well as promises from USA, And with the history of that country I wouldnt blame them.

Its hard to forget the Ghettos and the turned backs which they have endured since the 1930's especially since they provided the one peice of info that won the war.. the enigma...

Posted by SCpatriot 2004-09-24 2:07:13 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:07:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Aris, take a deep breath and back away from the keyboard. You're losing it.

Tell you what, if you're happy with the EU, I'm happy for you. Knock yourself out. Regulate the curvature of a banana.

And of course France is following all the rules. What was I thinking.

Oh, yeah - I was thinking I don't really give a rat's ass.

Say goodnight, Gracie.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-09-24 2:11:24 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:11:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 why would they want into something that that would compromise thier security

You tell me, SCPatriot. They voted in favour of EU however, that's the one fact that you can't deny. So could it be that they felt it *wouldn't* compromise their security? Could it be again that they're not sharing your assumptions?

And Sockpuppet, did you somewhere see me insult you at #4?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 2:12:38 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:12:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Aris, you say "they voted in favor of the EU."

Which countries had national referenda about joining the EU? (Not just the government or parliament deciding.)

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-09-24 2:15:01 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:15:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Out of the ten in the last entry? Nine of them. Malta, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary. In *all* of them the outcome was YES. In most of them overwhelmingly so.

The only one not to have a referendum about this issue was the Republic of Cyprus -- they had a referendum about rejoining with the Turkish Cypriots instead.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 2:18:43 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:18:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 It appears at least some of them are having second thoughts now.

Is there a procedure for backing out of the EU?

And in all seriousness, doesn't it bother you to have a layer of unelected bureaucrats, who appear to be answerable to no one, dictating from afar how your country will be run?

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-09-24 2:23:19 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:23:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 Arseclown, there is a Czech saying: "When they catch a bird, they sing sweetly".

I am not living in Czech Republic for 20 years, but maintain contacts, just to per-empt your presumptions.

Before entering into EU, Czechs enjoyed liberty, for more than a decade after disolution of Eastern Block. Not sure where you get an idea that they were liberated from slavery by the mighty EU empire. Don't confuse Slavs with slaves, k?

Ther reality is that the country is slowly becoming an economic colony of Germany. Since within the framework of EU, Czechs have 2% of vote, any concept of liberty is illusory. They sold their soveregnity for a bunch of trinkets.
It is not the first time such thing happened in history, I just am a tad sad that Czechs swallowed it line, hook and sinker.

Posted by Memesis 2004-09-24 2:24:07 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:24:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#21
sorry aris, your right that they wanted into the eu, but they have stated they dont want the euro fighter and want to keep the f16s which are cheaper and a better plane that suits ther needs. and if the eu insists that they use the strikefighter that means an attack by a rouge eu nation would have the same firepower as them. If they want better security go with the best weapons it only makes sense

Posted by SCpatriot 2004-09-24 2:24:25 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:24:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 "It appears at least some of them are having second thoughts now"

No, they are not, no matter how much you would like that to be the case. Do you have any opinion polls that tell otherwise?

"Is there a procedure for backing out of the EU?"

It's in the proposed EU constitution. Read it up. Am done educating you.

"And in all seriousness, doesn't it bother you to have a layer of unelected bureaucrats, who appear to be answerable to no one, dictating from afar how your country will be run?"

It would have bothered me if that was what was actually taking place. It isn't.

But keep on with your blissful ignorance. How many false assumption may I reply to in this thread?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 2:29:40 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:29:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 SCPatriot, do you know that the EU has nothing to do with the eurofighter, except the fact that some of our member-states formed the consortium to build it?

If it's someone pressuring Poland to buy Eurofighters I very much doubt it's the EU.

Memesis> Freedom means that a nation has the right to choose. They freely chose to enter the EU -- not that you would ever understand something like that. To you all marriages are rapes, all contracts are slavery, all unions are surrender.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 2:36:03 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:36:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 Aris, fair enough. Then those people who had the chance to vote and voted "yes" are not morons. I'm sure they know exactly what they've gotten themselves into.

Posted by jn1 2004-09-24 2:36:19 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:36:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#25

How many false assumption may I reply to in this thread?

As many as you like, Aris.

You don't need our permission. :-p

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-09-24 2:36:39 AM|| 2004-09-24 2:36:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 And Arsis spake thus:

"Freedom means that a nation has the right to choose. They freely chose to enter the EU"

Unfortunately, that is true. However, if you saw how the campaign was conducted by Europhiles, you would have to concede that the matter is not that straightforward. The parties that are led by Eurosceptics are starting to gain. In Czech and in Poland as well.

"-- not that you would ever understand something like that. To you all marriages are rapes, all contracts are slavery, all unions are surrender."

Ah, I see, you are already firmly footed in the LaLa Land. Too much Koolaid (or Euro equivalent)?
Forgotten to take medication? Full moon?

Not sure, but you sure sound like an utter loonie.

Posted by Memesis 2004-09-24 3:02:30 AM|| 2004-09-24 3:02:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Memesis, why should I care to speak with a person whose intellect is still at the kindergarten level of making fun of other people's names?

The parties that are led by Eurosceptics are starting to gain.

Let them gain. And if they convince their people that they are better off out of the Union, by all means let them leave it. It is their right and their freedom, which again you wouldn't know anything of.

But personally I doubt it. The Greek Socialist party (PASOK) back when we had first entered the EU had ridden to power on anti-EU (back then anti-EEC) rhetoric ("EEC and NATO, the same crook of gangs" was one of the popular calls used - it rhymes better in Greek) but once they took power they just tended to grumble and whine a lot about the EU and didn't make a single move to get us out of it -- and by now that once-Eurosceptic antiWest party has evolved into Europhilia and Atlanticism.

Even if they get into power, those Eurosceptic parties, they'll just end up only whining and grumbling I guess: The benefits EU gives poor nations are simply too many and the desire that these governments will have to build airports and hospitals and whatever with EU money will supercome their nationalistic zeal. UK and Norway may have a reason financially to want out, Eastern European nations don't.

jn1> No, jn1, I'm sure *you* know exactly what they got themselves into, you and Barbara even if you are so uninformed about the EU that you didn't even hear of the referendums in question.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 6:14:55 AM|| 2004-09-24 6:14:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 "right and their freedom, which again you wouldn't know anything of."

Based on what? I see you are lapsing again into some sort of loonie state. Perhaps some form of delusional projection? Snap out of it!

"The benefits EU gives poor nations are simply too many"

That sounds reeeeally great an enticing, and that was also the main thrust of EUrophile campaing in Czech Republic: "...we will have so many benefits that to list them would take a very long time, just take our word for it..."

Well, list them.

Posted by Memesis 2004-09-24 6:31:59 AM|| 2004-09-24 6:31:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 Ooh, just looked the stats. Czechia, as you prefer to be called: You voted 77.3% in favour, so this was one of the overwhelming YESes. (not as overwhelming as Slovakia or Lithuania or Slovenia though!)

And it was also the first referendum you *ever* had. See, even in this respect EU has been good for Czech democracy. ;-)

IRI Institute in Europe characterizes the vote as "partly free" and "fair". Among the pluses that your President did not appeal to one side, and that the referendum was binding. The main minus "high mutual distrust between electorate and political elite (âdo not talk to communistsâ campaign)"
http://www.iri-europe.org/i&reurope/reports/Country-Summaries.doc

Just to show that I do my fact-checking. :-)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 6:33:20 AM|| 2004-09-24 6:33:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 "making fun of other people's names?"

Never made a typo, did'ya? Well good for you.
I'll remind you when you do.

Posted by Memesis 2004-09-24 6:39:24 AM|| 2004-09-24 6:39:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 Well, list them.

Money and grants.

If in the eurozone, a currency that can't fall easy prey to Soros.

Influence, definitely far more so than outside the EU.

Greek Cypriots for the first in 30 years could cross over to the Turkish side, and the island almost got reunited, because of the boost that Cyprus' membership in the EU gave her.

A membership which was ofcourse aided by Greece's own earlier membership. Turkey had all the troops but Greece had all the diplomatic power. That was pretty even.

Open borders for trade.

An ability to resort to the EU court if another member doesn't play by the rules.

Now if in Czechia some of these don't apply you'll have to ask a Czech pro-EU fella about things specific to your country.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 6:41:12 AM|| 2004-09-24 6:41:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 You mean it was a typo when you called me "Arseclown" and then again with "Arsis"? Now "Arseclown" I could accept as an unfortunate typo, but "Arsis" is just too far fetched for me to accept. :-)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 6:43:05 AM|| 2004-09-24 6:43:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 "Based on what?"

Based on the fact you seem to think a consensual union is an unfortunate loss of freedom. A lifelong bachelor, you want to remain?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 6:44:49 AM|| 2004-09-24 6:44:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 Do you know, Aris, that in the last elections in Iraq, Saddam Hussein got 99.8% yes votes? I suppose that reflects the state of democrcy in Iraq before war. Or does it?

Things are not always what they seem on the surface. Czechs will likely grow to regret the vote (I know my pappenheimers) and that they did not pay more attention to the fine print. Of couse, they have the option to get out. I hope they do, before the consequences of their poor judgement would result in too great a damage.

Posted by Memesis 2004-09-24 6:49:22 AM|| 2004-09-24 6:49:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#35 "Based on the fact you seem to think a consensual union is an unfortunate loss of freedom. A lifelong bachelor, you want to remain?"

... seem to think... Aris, your crystal ball has a crack. Or if you use ESP, I hope that you are not dependent on making living on it.

Consensual unions are fine. But once there is an imballance, they turn into parasitic symbiosis. Just facts of life.

Posted by Memesis 2004-09-24 6:56:21 AM|| 2004-09-24 6:56:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#36 Are you insinuating the people of Czechia were physically intimidated into voting YES?

And if you are not insinuating that, please stop your foolish comparisons with Saddam. There's a reason I searched for the IRI description of the event: in order to see how it rated and described the event. The worst it had to say was "high mutual distrust between electorate and political elite"

So do please shut up with your foolishness. You feel they made a mistake. Tough -- it was their mistake to make one way or another. That you disagree with the outcome is no reason to try and bring Saddam into it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 6:57:59 AM|| 2004-09-24 6:57:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#37 But once there is an imballance, they turn into parasitic symbiosis.

Something can't be both a parasite and a symbiont, Memesis.

And in the case of parasitism, it tends to be the smaller party that's the parasite on the body of the larger. An unfortunate analogy unless you meant to insult your homeland.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 7:01:06 AM|| 2004-09-24 7:01:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#38 You got it just so wrong!
Arseclown was not a typo, while Arsis was.
Seriously. :-)

Posted by Memesis 2004-09-24 7:02:13 AM|| 2004-09-24 7:02:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#39 Yes, that was what is usually called "sarcasm".

That's a greek word btw, same as symbiosis and parasitism.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 7:03:33 AM|| 2004-09-24 7:03:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#40 Oh, how I bow to your superiorest intelect!

(Aris, please get over your snobish snottines and your entrenched idea that you are a representative of some superior culture, there is really nothing that should give you a foundation to feel that way. Advice from even a very old fart long past his prime may have some value, try it, you may find it useful and get to like it)

Posted by Memesis 2004-09-24 7:21:55 AM|| 2004-09-24 7:21:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#41 Aris, also, you forgetting that sometimes semantic meanings of words shift and what originally was mutually exclusive is used for description of states. So, just for elucidation:

"Symbiosis basically means âliving togetherâ and in the context of marine biology refers to a close relationship between two species, for example the Clown fish and the anemone.

These symbiotic interrelationships can be divided into three main categories; Mutualism, when both species involved benefit from the relationship, Commensalism, when one species benefits and the other isnât affected, and Parasitism, when one species benefits, and the other is harmed in the process.

There is a fourth, less âintimateâ category of symbiosis known as Mimicry, which involves one species imitating another to gain the benefits enjoyed by that species. For example a Banded snake eel mimicking a venomous sea snake in order to deter predators."

Posted by Memesis 2004-09-24 7:38:18 AM|| 2004-09-24 7:38:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#42 you are a representative of some superior culture,

I never said I represented some superior culture -- I was born in *modern* Greece after all and that's in the *Balkans* after all. As far from "superior" as you can get in Europe, the Balkans are.

My arrogance and snottiness are highly individualistic, I assure you -- as is my contempt. Each of you have to gain it separately.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 8:22:45 AM|| 2004-09-24 8:22:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#43 Which you've made clear we have. It's nice to get my accomplishment for the day done early. Thanks.

Why don't we call a truce, Aris? We're always going to look at things from different perspectives.

Europeans mostly think we're crass, uninformed cowboys, and we're think you're mostly nuts.

So let's just agree to disagree. :-p

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-09-24 8:33:33 AM|| 2004-09-24 8:33:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#44 Oh, brother!

Ya know, what, Aris? Print up you utterance, put it in a box and set it aside for 20 years. Then open it and read it.

There is a slim chance that you may find it highly amusing.

Posted by Memesis 2004-09-24 8:38:35 AM|| 2004-09-24 8:38:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#45 This chat on the European Union
Is a little like peeling an onion
It's making me cry
And I think I know why -
Aris keeps singing these loony tunes.

Posted by Bryan 2004-09-24 9:13:11 AM|| 2004-09-24 9:13:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#46 The EU isn't worth worrying about, let alone opposing. Just let it fall apart under the enormous weight of it's own pomposity...

Posted by mojo 2004-09-24 11:24:20 AM|| 2004-09-24 11:24:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#47 Agreed. China matters far more to us than anything that happens with the EU.

Posted by lex 2004-09-24 11:35:58 AM|| 2004-09-24 11:35:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#48 Can we agree to assume that the Greeks and others think joining the EU is worth the risks? They get economic benefits (relative to being shut out). And the spector of an overwhelming unelected but unmalicious bureaucracy probably seems less frightening than events from their own recent past: in Greece's case military dictatorship and vicious social unrest. And these are little countries, trying to keep their footing during the elephant dance.

We see obvious problems down the road, they see a different set of problems right now.

And no, I'm not convinced that the EU as currently designed is all that great an idea. I have a gut reaction (based not on any knowledge of popular opinion but on seeing how bureaucracies interact) that it won't last long. Is there a pool for guessing how long it will be before the EU is just a facade?

Posted by James 2004-09-24 12:08:53 PM|| [http://www.idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2004-09-24 12:08:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Why did so many Europeans jump at the chance to dump thousands of years of history and culture and join the sparkling new, minty fresh EU. I'll take a shot at that.

Most Europeans have serious problems with guilt and nationalism. American's displaying their flags all the time are seen as vulgar for this reason. Flags and nationalism are associated with Facists. They'd love to be proud of their nations again (look at the flags at a Futball (soccer) match) but there is too much damage done by WW2, Cold War, and transnational progressive thought.

By joining Europe thousands of years of history are reputed and the whole thing is a do-over. Its a clean slate. Something everyone can be proud of.

Posted by RJ Schwarz 2004-09-24 12:18:10 PM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-09-24 12:18:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Hey Aris,

I've got a real question for you, no attempt at snarkiness.

Personally what I know of the EU constitution and the EU in general scares me as I hate the entire idea of an unelected technocratic oligarchy with almost unlimited power, but that's just me.

My question for you is this....

Did you guys ever consider a federal model based on the US constitution? We figured out how to solve the big state, small date dilemma 200 years ago. Also the separation of powers between states and the central government. Sure there have been some rough spots, but, by and large you have to admit it works pretty well. So, why not give it a look and discussion amongst the people, instead of accepting something handed down from the unelected elite in Brussels?

PS Is it a straight banana or a curvey one that's illegal? ;^)

Posted by AlanC 2004-09-24 12:25:20 PM|| 2004-09-24 12:25:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Don't even waste Fred's bandwith trying to have a debate with this idiot aris...

Posted by Dan 2004-09-24 12:38:29 PM|| 2004-09-24 12:38:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 AlanC, I'm sure Europeans would rather fail miserably than admit us Americans know a thing or two about government.

Posted by jn1 2004-09-24 1:05:04 PM|| 2004-09-24 1:05:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Part of the EU idea is very reasonable and a good thing. The free trade zone is obviously a benefit (remember that the US is a free trade zone between 50 states; think if it weren't so). The unified currency may be beneficial to some countries, perhaps not so to others (Britain would be foolish to agree to it).

I'm not so sure about the idea of a common military, but it will be so weak that it probably won't matter.

Now, the idea of a centralized government controlling what a local grocer can sell or label products is an example of what's wrong with the EU people. Really, if the central government has jurisdiction over everything, why bother having the national (or even city) governments at all?

That's the real flaw I see in the EU system. Simply saying that Slovenia has 4 seats (or whatever) in the EU parliament doesn't really give them much influence. You can argue that they shouldn't have much influence over Europe as a whole, and I'd agree, but if the central government can control local Slovenian matters, in effect they will be ruled by foreigners.

You can see the same tensions here in the US, with the Big State/Small State issues. We have the Senate, where the States are to be represented as States and theoretically, the federal government has only certain enumerated powers, with the States being left (theoretically) to control everything else within their sphere. Wyoming doesn't mind have only 1 out of 435 votes in the House because they have equal representation in the Senate and even if they didn't, the federal government doesn't set most laws in Wyoming. If we had a central national government with only the House, the small States would be powerless to affect laws that control them. There would be a lot of divisiveness and maybe even civil war. And that is a country that (for all the left's attempt to set us against each other, culture against culture), is still basically one single nation, with one language.

Posted by jackal 2004-09-24 1:12:59 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-09-24 1:12:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Well said, jackal.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-09-24 1:24:18 PM|| 2004-09-24 1:24:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Re #51 Oh, I don't think he's an idiot, really. He has a perspective that I don't agree with, but, I've seen him make a point or two whilst I've mostly lurked here. And, he is out-numbered so a certain amount of testiness is understandable, if not helpful.

Re: 52 Well, that would be my guess, but, I'd like to get a "local" opinion.

Re: 53
That's the point I'm trying to make. How about the EU looks like the US circa 1830? Limited if any central military. State militias with the most power. Limited central taxation, therefore, limited central power. If you have a free trade zone and a common currency you have to have the central legislature (two houses splitting power proportionally and severally) to set the common rules for trade etc.i.e. our elastic clause.

Rather than trying to have a complete monolithic government spring from the Jovian Brow. The Euros would be better off starting small and restricted (think BoR) and growing as their needs and desires dictate. Of course this doesn't fit the needs of the oligarchy, does it?

Posted by AlanC 2004-09-24 1:45:15 PM|| 2004-09-24 1:45:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 #55 - guess you needed to see this guy's rants over the last year and half..but we are entitled to our opinions. Good luck if you choose to go down that road with him..

Posted by Dan 2004-09-24 2:22:27 PM|| 2004-09-24 2:22:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 #31 Well, list them.

Money and grants.

& et. al. blah, blah, blah. Except you forgot to mention one important factor to all those benefits - Greece cheated! It cooked the books (now admitted by its Ministry of Finance)that allowed its membership in the Euro currency. But that is small potatoes to the French and Germans and somewhat the Irish all agreeing to certain fiscal disciplinary provisions to maintain the quality of the Euro and then reneging by unbalancing their debt portion of GDP. God forbid it ever has to defend itself or take pre-emptive action. The military is short-changed (even the UK) and the rest (French and Germany, etc.) are a mirage of defense capabilities.

Posted by Jack is Back 2004-09-24 2:25:59 PM|| 2004-09-24 2:25:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 Wow, I guess that Aris is living proof that EU healthcare lacks adequate access to psychotropic meds.

Posted by Sgt.D.T. 2004-09-24 2:53:21 PM|| 2004-09-24 2:53:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Ya know, what, Aris? Print up you utterance, put it in a box and set it aside for 20 years.

*Which* utterance?

China matters far more to us than anything that happens with the EU

True, but then again EU doesn't exist in order to matter to *you*. It matters enough to the people of Europe.

"Why did so many Europeans jump at the chance to dump thousands of years of history and culture and join the sparkling new, minty fresh EU"

We didn't dump anything at all. Once again with the foolish assumptions.

Personally what I know of the EU constitution and the EU in general scares me as I hate the entire idea of an unelected technocratic oligarchy with almost unlimited power, but that's just me.

When people speak about "unelected technocratic oligarchy" they are speaking about the Commission. And yet the Commission can't really do anything without the consent of either the European Parliament (directly elected) or the Council (which is composed of either the prime ministers or the ministers in some subject of each of the countries). Unelected -- yeah, the way that Colin Powel and Rumsfeld are unelected. Unlimited power? Hardly.

My question for you is this.... Did you guys ever consider a federal model based on the US constitution? We figured out how to solve the big state, small date dilemma 200 years ago.

That's... not the dilemma IMO. The big state-small state thing is mostly a facade I believe: in pretty much all the conflicts and disagreements that have occured in Europe after all (both military and political) it was an alliance of big and small countries in one side versus an alliance of big and small countries from the other.

The real dilemma I believe is federalism-versus-intergovernmentalism. If you trust the people of other nations not to actively strive for your harm, you'll be willing to share sovereignty with them regardless of whether you are a big nation or a small one - that's federalism, you'll know in some cases you'll find agreement and you know in some cases you'll find disagreement, but you are willing to try it out and make it work.

If you don't trust them as a whole however, if you don't believe their goals largely are the same as yours, you don't hand power over to a larger union *regardless* of how much representation you have in said union. Because you'll always be afraid the other eeevil countries will make an alliance against you. In that case you only accept intergovernmentalism when absolute consensus is required before a decision is made, or such a large majority that it'd be unlikely to be achieved if there was any dispute involved.

Your system of big-small state representation didn't work as nicely as that, I believe. For example for the first century you kept on splitting states or admitting them precisely in order to have slave-states be numerically equal to the free-states. And because these two groups *didn't* trust each other, this eventually collapsed also -- and the division between small and big states had nothing to do with it: it was the division between federalism and the (equivalent of) intergovernmentalism that did you in.

Most continental EU nations largely trust each other to a smaller or greater extent -- which is why we can tell the difference between a union and a conquest. Britain on the other hand doesn't seem to trust the others, and sees all sharing of sovereignty as a foreign invasion against her shores.

Also the separation of powers between states and the central government. Sure there have been some rough spots, but, by and large you have to admit it works pretty well.

It led you to a civil war, the disagreement about the separation of powers between states and the central government. It *now* works pretty well. But then again you are extremely homogeneous as a nation and aren't allowing states to secede.

And besides your own expansion you've been largely static since the civil war -- nobody has *asked* to join you for a while. Even Puerto Rico hesitates to change its status to full statehood.

So, why not give it a look and discussion amongst the people, instead of accepting something handed down from the unelected elite in Brussels? PS Is it a straight banana or a curvey one that's illegal? ;^)

And again with accepting something handed down by an unelected elite -- no, it's been mostly the European Council that's been pushing further integration AFAIK, not the European Commission. And the European Council is formed by the *elected* heads of government of each country.

I don't know about other countries but further integration with the EU is highly approved here -- Greeks, with the exception of the communists, largely want EU to strengthen, partly in order to be able to be a protective guard if anything bad comes from Turkey. And all non-communist parties wanted to be part of the Euro, as the drachma was hardly a currency we had faith in.

And when the EU tries to do something we don't like, we hardly go into rabid EU-hate rants, we simply smile, roll our eyes upwards and keep on doing what we were doing. "kokoretsi" for example has been prohibited by the EU for health reason. We keep on eating it. Do you think that the Franco-German troops gonna invade us for that?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 3:24:56 PM|| 2004-09-24 3:24:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 Dates States joined the Union.

A hair less than 2/3rds before the civil war, 3 during, 14 after, with three joining in-between.

Posted by Ptah 2004-09-24 3:43:31 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-09-24 3:43:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 Thank you but I believe that with the exception of Hawai (in which there was a coup), the rest of those states were all already part of US territory and settled by people of the USA? Their status changed to full-fledged states, but they didn't join up the way Texas had done -- being independent and then applying to join the US.

My point was that independent countries like Jamaica or Belize or Panama or whatever, they haven't shown desire to join you as states.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 3:54:52 PM|| 2004-09-24 3:54:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 Re: #59

Thanks for the long and calm reply. There are a couple of things that I'd like to bring up.

1) The issue of slavery has always been the distorting feature in American history. You either have to examine the country as it was before Slavery became a big issue, say pre 1830, or post civil war. The problem with it was the fact that slave or free was originally the "great" compromise in the constitution this is where the balancing of new admissions came from. The civil war was basically fought on states rights issues of which slavery was the most visible though not the only one, the biggest one had to do with agrarian vs. industrial economics (that should sound familiar, no?). So....
2) let's leave the slavery issue aside as much as possible. Many states have joined since the civil war. Arizona the last of the lower 48 in 1912 or 14. The reason that none of the countries you mention wanted to join the US are that they are culturally different being either Spanish or French colonies / provinces and having thrown off their colonial masters they wanted to be independent. One reason for this is that their post-colonial periods were quickly taken over by elites that liked being the top dog, not a whole lot of egalitarian democracy cropping up.
3) Puerto Rico gets the best of both worlds in that they have virtually all the bennies of statehood and few of the responsibilities of independence or statehood. Personally I wish that they would petition for statehood or go independent.

Okay, enlighten me on the distinction between the Council and the Commission. If the commission is the unelected bureaucracy, where does it get its power? Does the parliment pass explicit laws or what? Everything I've heard from my British and German friends indicates that the "banana rule" (my metaphor for the unelected bureaucracy since the concept tickles me pink) comes from the Commission NOT the Council. Did the Council just give the Commission carte blanche?

Posted by AlanC 2004-09-24 4:45:58 PM|| 2004-09-24 4:45:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 "enlighten me on the distinction between the Council and the Commission."

Council
The "European Council" is the meeting of the 25 heads of government. Blair, Chirac, Shroeder, Berlusconi, Karamanlis -- all 25 of them. They are elected by their nations. The "Council of Ministers" is the same thing but in this cases it's not about the heads of government but ministers meeting e.g. the 25 Ministers of Finance, or the 25 Ministers of Defense, or the 25 Ministers of Agriculture. And so forth. They indicate direction and give authorization.

Commission
The Commission on the other hand serves as the bureacratic/executive arm. The President of the Commission (used to be Prodi) must be agreed upon by consensus of the European Council. Then he must be approved by the directly elected European Parliament.

The other 24 members of the Commission are selected one by each member-state. They are appointed to their respective positions by the President of the Commission. In the case of malpractice the European Parliament has the power to force the entire Commission to resign -- in fact this has already happened when the Sander commission resigned over some scandal.

Everything I've heard from my British and German friends indicates that the "banana rule" (my metaphor for the unelected bureaucracy since the concept tickles me pink) comes from the Commission NOT the Council

Since the "banana rule" is a minor bureaucratic point rather than a major point of policy, my guess (I don't know for sure) is that indeed the Commission made the rule under the guidelines of consumer protection or product standardization or whatever -- and *then* it was approved in the European Parliament.

Once again: The Commission can't do anything alone. It must have either approval of the Council or from the Parliament, depending on case.

Does the parliment pass explicit laws or what?

The parliament must approve all laws passed. Hold on a sec for me to check the treaties if they can pass laws by themselves -- I doubt it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 5:07:09 PM|| 2004-09-24 5:07:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 In the Treaty of Nice, atleast, (and boy is that a confusing document -- makes me appreciate how the simplification of the EU Constitution was sorely needed) I don't see the European Parliament being able to pass any laws alone. The three instruments, Council, Commission, and European Parliament must almost always act in agreement for anything to pass.

The specific law may have been *written* by the Commission, but the other two instruments approved it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 5:23:34 PM|| 2004-09-24 5:23:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 Aris, rearrange:

ass take your finger of out your.

It's Friday, go f*ck and fight.

Posted by Howard UK 2004-09-24 5:26:49 PM|| 2004-09-24 5:26:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 Thanks for the suggestion. I promise you I will treat it with the same contempt I hold for you.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 5:31:49 PM|| 2004-09-24 5:31:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 Cheers, matey.

Posted by Howard UK 2004-09-24 5:35:03 PM|| 2004-09-24 5:35:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 Aris: *Which* utterance?

Well, now I am inclined to say... make it plural, almost any would do.

Dunno. In rare instances, you sound like a reasonable guy.

Posted by Memesis 2004-09-24 6:14:03 PM|| 2004-09-24 6:14:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 Re #64

"And makes me appreciate how the simplification of the EU Constitution was..."

OMG are you saying that the EU constitution is simplified??!!?!?!!???!!!!!????

Can I suggest that your boys need to get out more, look at some straight forward documents.

I really think that if the EU could be tremendously improved if they do 2 things:

1) Have a short simple constitution that explicitly enumerates what the EU government does and does NOT own in terms of governance, and
2) Take all that other s*** out of the damn constitution and make the legislature pass each item as individual law like any normal government does.
"

Posted by AlanC 2004-09-24 6:31:38 PM|| 2004-09-24 6:31:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 "Have a short simple constitution that explicitly enumerates what the EU government does and does NOT own in terms of governance."

HOOOOOO BOOOOY! That was a knee-slapper.

It would never happen, the apparatchiks love bureacratic fascism too much to allow it.

Posted by Ernest Brown 2004-09-24 6:46:03 PM|| [http://saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2004-09-24 6:46:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 AlanC, compared to the mass of multiply-amended treaties, yeah it's simplified. It's not simplified *enough* for my tastes ofcourse.

But your suggestion about the further simplification that would give the legislature so much power -- that would be a major shift in favour of federalism. EU Legislature passing laws without the consent of the unlected but rather *appointed* members of each nation's government whether in the Commission or the Council of Ministers? I heartily approve myself, but the Brits wouldn't accept a major shift in favour of the European Parliament, because that'd be a major shift in favour of a *federalist* rather than an intergovernmental body. Not that they are the *only* ones wary of federalism. The French aren't the most federalist types either. But Brits come first in anti-federalism.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 7:03:31 PM|| 2004-09-24 7:03:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 A further note -- the function of the Senate which has equal representation, is done in the EU to a great extent by the Council's role.

It would be as if, instead of 100 members of the Senate, two from each state, you had the 50 governors going and voting. The idea of equal representation between states would still be upheld.

There are caveats here, in which the Council can't take a decision *only* by numerical majority, but the states voting yes must also be representing a certain amount of population -- that's the kind of thing I object to, since I feel the Council's function should be simplified and points of population sizes should be referred to the Parliament.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 7:20:23 PM|| 2004-09-24 7:20:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 Aris,

Thanks for your explanations. Since I'm basically conservative with Libertarian tendencies we probably have some differences about what the proper role and limits of governments are.

But, I think that the EU needs to decide if it is truly going to be a treaty based organization of sovereign states or a federation of equals with a common central government. I doubt that the sovereign states idea will work very well unless the issues are really limited such as the common market. That doesn't seem to be the case though (ref. one curved banana)the bureaucrats want to get into all the details of life. That's the problem with Socialism, the elites know better.

Don't see how it will work, too many elitists all wanting the power, maybe you won't shoot each other anymore.

Posted by AlanC 2004-09-24 8:14:25 PM|| 2004-09-24 8:14:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 Since I'm basically conservative with Libertarian tendencies we probably have some differences about what the proper role and limits of governments are

I tend to care more about freedom in *practice*. Banana regulations might have mattered more to me if I was a banana-eater or a banana-producer. In practice I'm more likely to care that my brother is able to live and work in the UK without hindrance, or that I don't need to lose money through exchanges when I'm travelling through the Eurozone, or that we no longer need passports to travel through the Eurozone. (One noteworthy incident is how Turkish Cypriots are now travelling to southern Cyprus to get EU passports, in order to be able to freely study at European universities at much lower costs. It's especially noteworthy because Denktash's own grandson did that: Denktash had once called it treason for a Turkish Cypriot to seek to get a passport of the Republic of Cyprus.)

Freedom of residency, freedom of employment -- if lack of freedom in *bananas* is the price to pay for those other freedoms, then I'm willing to pay it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 9:26:50 PM|| 2004-09-24 9:26:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 ...travel through the Schengen area, I meant.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 9:28:33 PM|| 2004-09-24 9:28:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 Aris: They freely chose to enter the EU

Well, yes they did. But like I've said so many times before, in Poland's case, it is not because they loved the EU so much, but because they were frustrated with their current government, and all the governments they have ever had since 1990. They voted with the hope that for the first time their own government will have to answer to a still higher authority, and thereby change its ways. This is not an insignificant point, even if the vote was an overwhelming "yes".

Aris: Money and grants.

The jury is still out on this one. Though a couple of education grants were thrown Poland's way lately.

Aris: If in the eurozone, a currency that can't fall easy prey to Soros.

OTOH, you're giving up control over monetary policy, which is a useful tool in fine-tuning the economy. It would be fine if Europe was homogeneous in terms of economic activity. But at this point, what's good for Germany isn't necessarily good for Poland.

Aris: Influence, definitely far more so than outside the EU.

In this case it just trading one thing for another: gaining influence but at the same time being subservient to the biggest players in the union, mainly France & Germany.

Aris: Open borders for trade.

Currently only western Europe can take advantage of this.* Western Europe should be extremely generous towards the new members as a result of getting this "gift". Closing borders to movement of labour is not a generous thing to do.

Aris: An ability to resort to the EU court if another member doesn't play by the rules.

More like: an ability to resort to the EU court if another member's government doesn't play by the rules. OK, so this is a good thing :)

*True, eastern Europe will eventually catch up, but they would have done so even without joining the EU. Western Europe needs these markets as much as eastern Europe needs the west.

Posted by Rafael 2004-09-24 9:35:29 PM|| 2004-09-24 9:35:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#77 Flip flopping between preview and editing, my comment above lost the italics on Aris' comments. But y'all can figure things out.

Posted by Rafael 2004-09-24 9:37:47 PM|| 2004-09-24 9:37:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#78 Western Europe should be extremely generous towards the new members as a result of getting this "gift". Closing borders to movement of labour is not a generous thing to do.

Agreed on that, but let me just note that it was one of the negotiated agreements for accession. In return Poland has also gotten big transitory periods before it needs to fully conform to certain aspects of the "acquis".

Agreed on pretty much everything you said, except the bit about being subservient to the biggest players in union, "mainly France and Germany". I truly think that poor and small countries are forced to more de facto "subservience" outside the union than inside it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-24 10:33:05 PM|| 2004-09-24 10:33:05 PM|| Front Page Top

12:42 Liberalhawk
12:42 Liberalhawk
07:09 Memesis
05:02 Sock Puppet of Doom
04:57 Zenster
03:24 Super Hose
03:13 Super Hose
03:10 Super Hose
01:05 Sock Puppet of Doom
01:04 Zhang Fei
01:02 Memesis
00:57 Mike Sylwester
00:56 .com
00:49 Super Hose
00:45 Mike Sylwester
00:45 .com
00:39 Sock Puppet of Doom
00:35 .com
00:24 Memesis
00:20 Old Patriot
00:15 Zenster
00:14 Bomb-a-rama
00:12 Memesis
23:53 Zhang Fei