|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Geez, this last page strikes me as having a lot of undertones of European imperialism.
The EU, or at the very least its predecessors, represent(s) a definite step forward in keeping the powers that be in Europe from starting endless wars with each other. That's definitely a good thing. But what is important to remember is that unity isn't always a good thing. Would everyone be satisfied with unity under the Third Reich, Soviet Union, French Empire, direct US control, or any other such arrangement? There wouldn't be any wars if the government kept things together but I'm sure none of those options sound appealing.
The EU and "unity" aren't all good. For some countries they genuinely belong outside of any form of European sphere of influence. If Turkey is more Islamic than European, is there a problem if they go that direction? They would cause more trouble inside the EU than out. Same deal with any nations that take a more pro-Russian approach than a pro-Western one.
Peace and stability aren't made from forced unity. If the EU wasn't meant to be, then so be it. It's too young to see how well it will survive; this could easily be its biggest crisis of faith yet and we will see how it copes. Five years ago I'd say it would survive, now I'm not sure if it can.
|
Every meaningful union consists of individual members delegating power upwards, that's why it's called a union. If absolute, unconditional sovereignty is high on your list of issues you probably shouldn't be joining one. And of course every modern empire or nation state is the product of forced unity, it's not like history is full of people meeting around campfires singing Kumbaya. The EU is very soft on how it exercises power, calling this imperialism is laughable.
|
How exactly are you getting undertones of European imperialism? Every single country in the EU joined the EU voluntarily. Some had to jump through massive hoops setting up stronger democratic and meritocratic institutions aginst vested corrupted interests. Turkey not joining the EU is due to Turkey's leaders not wanting to join the EU. Erdogan hasn't taken one step towards fulfilling the requirements.
|
On November 18 2016 05:27 LegalLord wrote:
Geez, this last page strikes me as having a lot of undertones of European imperialism.
The EU, or at the very least its predecessors, represent(s) a definite step forward in keeping the powers that be in Europe from starting endless wars with each other. That's definitely a good thing. But what is important to remember is that unity isn't always a good thing. Would everyone be satisfied with unity under the Third Reich, Soviet Union, French Empire, direct US control, or any other such arrangement? There wouldn't be any wars if the government kept things together but I'm sure none of those options sound appealing.
The EU and "unity" aren't all good. For some countries they genuinely belong outside of any form of European sphere of influence. If Turkey is more Islamic than European, is there a problem if they go that direction? They would cause more trouble inside the EU than out. Same deal with any nations that take a more pro-Russian approach than a pro-Western one.
Peace and stability aren't made from forced unity. If the EU wasn't meant to be, then so be it. It's too young to see how well it will survive; this could easily be its biggest crisis of faith yet and we will see how it copes. Five years ago I'd say it would survive, now I'm not sure if it can.
Well, let's differentiate a little bit, because I mostly agree with your statement. When I say:
Yeah, but buckling down from the beginning is the opposite of a diplomatic solution. Europe has to act united and strong, otherwise we will forever stay a playball for 3rd world nations like turkey or russia.
My point is that we have to try to find a consensus amongst ourselves that we can represent towards the rest of the world. We are not and we should not act like a United States of Europe. But we have to act as a solidary community of nations that wants to create a better world together for each of those nations. That means we have to compromise, maybe even to the smallest denominator and not the greatest utilitaristic good. But when we have found a compromise, we have to act as one afterwards and we shouldn't let our politics and political processes be dictated by outside powers who want an specific answer right now. That's what they can give us - Turkey can cut the ropes anytime they want, if Erdogan is so eager to get a fast answer.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 18 2016 05:46 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 05:27 LegalLord wrote:
Geez, this last page strikes me as having a lot of undertones of European imperialism.
The EU, or at the very least its predecessors, represent(s) a definite step forward in keeping the powers that be in Europe from starting endless wars with each other. That's definitely a good thing. But what is important to remember is that unity isn't always a good thing. Would everyone be satisfied with unity under the Third Reich, Soviet Union, French Empire, direct US control, or any other such arrangement? There wouldn't be any wars if the government kept things together but I'm sure none of those options sound appealing.
The EU and "unity" aren't all good. For some countries they genuinely belong outside of any form of European sphere of influence. If Turkey is more Islamic than European, is there a problem if they go that direction? They would cause more trouble inside the EU than out. Same deal with any nations that take a more pro-Russian approach than a pro-Western one.
Peace and stability aren't made from forced unity. If the EU wasn't meant to be, then so be it. It's too young to see how well it will survive; this could easily be its biggest crisis of faith yet and we will see how it copes. Five years ago I'd say it would survive, now I'm not sure if it can. Well, let's differentiate a little bit, because I mostly agree with your statement. When I say: Show nested quote +Yeah, but buckling down from the beginning is the opposite of a diplomatic solution. Europe has to act united and strong, otherwise we will forever stay a playball for 3rd world nations like turkey or russia. My point is that we have to try to find a consensus amongst ourselves that we can represent towards the rest of the world. We are not and we should not act like a United States of Europe. But we have to act as a solidary community of nations that wants to create a better world together for each of those nations. That means we have to compromise, maybe even to the smallest denominator and not the greatest utilitaristic good. But when we have found a compromise, we have to act as one afterwards and we shouldn't let our politics and political processes be dictated by outside powers who want an specific answer right now. That's what they can give us - Turkey can cut the ropes anytime they want, if Erdogan is so eager to get a fast answer.
Problem is that sometimes the general goals of different European nations are so divergent that they can't act like a unified political entity. It functioned just fine as a trade union but politically it doesn't have the capability to act with the unity of a single nation-state. It would always just end in the most powerful nations dictating their terms and the peasant nations having little choice but to comply. Europe does not have anything near the kind of cultural solidarity of an entity which could function as nation-states usually do and that's the problem with what you say. Too often the unity of the EU is made from far more than a reasonable degree of coercion of the member states of lesser influence.
|
On November 18 2016 06:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 05:46 Big J wrote:On November 18 2016 05:27 LegalLord wrote:
Geez, this last page strikes me as having a lot of undertones of European imperialism.
The EU, or at the very least its predecessors, represent(s) a definite step forward in keeping the powers that be in Europe from starting endless wars with each other. That's definitely a good thing. But what is important to remember is that unity isn't always a good thing. Would everyone be satisfied with unity under the Third Reich, Soviet Union, French Empire, direct US control, or any other such arrangement? There wouldn't be any wars if the government kept things together but I'm sure none of those options sound appealing.
The EU and "unity" aren't all good. For some countries they genuinely belong outside of any form of European sphere of influence. If Turkey is more Islamic than European, is there a problem if they go that direction? They would cause more trouble inside the EU than out. Same deal with any nations that take a more pro-Russian approach than a pro-Western one.
Peace and stability aren't made from forced unity. If the EU wasn't meant to be, then so be it. It's too young to see how well it will survive; this could easily be its biggest crisis of faith yet and we will see how it copes. Five years ago I'd say it would survive, now I'm not sure if it can. Well, let's differentiate a little bit, because I mostly agree with your statement. When I say: Yeah, but buckling down from the beginning is the opposite of a diplomatic solution. Europe has to act united and strong, otherwise we will forever stay a playball for 3rd world nations like turkey or russia. My point is that we have to try to find a consensus amongst ourselves that we can represent towards the rest of the world. We are not and we should not act like a United States of Europe. But we have to act as a solidary community of nations that wants to create a better world together for each of those nations. That means we have to compromise, maybe even to the smallest denominator and not the greatest utilitaristic good. But when we have found a compromise, we have to act as one afterwards and we shouldn't let our politics and political processes be dictated by outside powers who want an specific answer right now. That's what they can give us - Turkey can cut the ropes anytime they want, if Erdogan is so eager to get a fast answer. Problem is that sometimes the general goals of different European nations are so divergent that they can't act like a unified political entity. It functioned just fine as a trade union but politically it doesn't have the capability to act with the unity of a single nation-state. It would always just end in the most powerful nations dictating their terms and the peasant nations having little choice but to comply. Europe does not have anything near the kind of cultural solidarity of an entity which could function as nation-states usually do and that's the problem with what you say. Too often the unity of the EU is made from far more than a reasonable degree of coercion of the member states of lesser influence.
I think that this is a wrong perception. The EU has achieved many minor and major things by working together that go far beyond the market. Without its regulations the tax evasion would be even bigger and the worst thing we could be doing to our countries is forming a pure trade-based market. We are fighting corruption, we are fighting climate change together, we are fighting tax evasion together, we are trying to work together in our education, we are working together in fighting crime and much more.
It's a slow process, but I believe that without the EU, we couldn't make it. We would get lost and try to play each other on a free market of interests, because there is simply too much to gain in the shortrun if you do not have a rough direction that everyone is trying to march towards. And I personally do not see how little states do not have influence. What Orban wants matters. What Wallonia wants matters. That Austria wants special transit rights matters. The UK would have gotten more special treatments if they had not decided to leave. Yes, of course there are rough cases like Greece and I would absolutely hope that countries like Germany and Austria would loosen their grip around those people. It is not perfect, but Europe is a better place than if we didn't have it.
|
Obama's interventions in europe are such a disappointement. This guy is intelligent, but never take a solid stance when it is needed. So before greeks he ask them not to pursue a capitalism "without soul", yeah suck like you had to tell that to greeks, and before germans he present Merkel like the best leader of them all, when she is basically the one responsible for the greek fiasco. What a joke, less hypocrisy please.
|
On November 18 2016 06:57 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 06:08 LegalLord wrote:On November 18 2016 05:46 Big J wrote:On November 18 2016 05:27 LegalLord wrote:
Geez, this last page strikes me as having a lot of undertones of European imperialism.
The EU, or at the very least its predecessors, represent(s) a definite step forward in keeping the powers that be in Europe from starting endless wars with each other. That's definitely a good thing. But what is important to remember is that unity isn't always a good thing. Would everyone be satisfied with unity under the Third Reich, Soviet Union, French Empire, direct US control, or any other such arrangement? There wouldn't be any wars if the government kept things together but I'm sure none of those options sound appealing.
The EU and "unity" aren't all good. For some countries they genuinely belong outside of any form of European sphere of influence. If Turkey is more Islamic than European, is there a problem if they go that direction? They would cause more trouble inside the EU than out. Same deal with any nations that take a more pro-Russian approach than a pro-Western one.
Peace and stability aren't made from forced unity. If the EU wasn't meant to be, then so be it. It's too young to see how well it will survive; this could easily be its biggest crisis of faith yet and we will see how it copes. Five years ago I'd say it would survive, now I'm not sure if it can. Well, let's differentiate a little bit, because I mostly agree with your statement. When I say: Yeah, but buckling down from the beginning is the opposite of a diplomatic solution. Europe has to act united and strong, otherwise we will forever stay a playball for 3rd world nations like turkey or russia. My point is that we have to try to find a consensus amongst ourselves that we can represent towards the rest of the world. We are not and we should not act like a United States of Europe. But we have to act as a solidary community of nations that wants to create a better world together for each of those nations. That means we have to compromise, maybe even to the smallest denominator and not the greatest utilitaristic good. But when we have found a compromise, we have to act as one afterwards and we shouldn't let our politics and political processes be dictated by outside powers who want an specific answer right now. That's what they can give us - Turkey can cut the ropes anytime they want, if Erdogan is so eager to get a fast answer. Problem is that sometimes the general goals of different European nations are so divergent that they can't act like a unified political entity. It functioned just fine as a trade union but politically it doesn't have the capability to act with the unity of a single nation-state. It would always just end in the most powerful nations dictating their terms and the peasant nations having little choice but to comply. Europe does not have anything near the kind of cultural solidarity of an entity which could function as nation-states usually do and that's the problem with what you say. Too often the unity of the EU is made from far more than a reasonable degree of coercion of the member states of lesser influence. I think that this is a wrong perception. The EU has achieved many minor and major things by working together that go far beyond the market. Without its regulations the tax evasion would be even bigger and the worst thing we could be doing to our countries is forming a pure trade-based market. We are fighting corruption, we are fighting climate change together, we are fighting tax evasion together, we are trying to work together in our education, we are working together in fighting crime and much more. It's a slow process, but I believe that without the EU, we couldn't make it. We would get lost and try to play each other on a free market of interests, because there is simply too much to gain in the shortrun if you do not have a rough direction that everyone is trying to march towards. And I personally do not see how little states do not have influence. What Orban wants matters. What Wallonia wants matters. That Austria wants special transit rights matters. The UK would have gotten more special treatments if they had not decided to leave. Yes, of course there are rough cases like Greece and I would absolutely hope that countries like Germany and Austria would loosen their grip around those people. It is not perfect, but Europe is a better place than if we didn't have it.
Norway pays the EU for membership in the common market, and we have free movement of peoples but we can never have full membership. SImply because we want to keep our fishing and agricultural rights from being infringed upon by spanish, french and italian sailors whom the british used to compete with. Do you see many british sailors now-a-days?
Say what you will about european collaboration. Not one country has given up what is theirs without competition, and competition is fierce in the single market.
When The European Commission announces plans to artificially boost prices by buying up 139,000 tonnes of diary products at a cost to the public purse of £237 million. is that cooperation? The wars are being fought underneath the surface and they are every bit as intense and meaningful as the previous ones. The stakes are just different is all.
|
On November 18 2016 20:56 WhiteDog wrote:
Obama's interventions in europe are such a disappointement. This guy is intelligent, but never take a solid stance when it is needed. So before greeks he ask them not to pursue a capitalism "without soul", yeah suck like you had to tell that to greeks, and before germans he present Merkel like the best leader of them all, when she is basically the one responsible for the greek fiasco. What a joke, less hypocrisy please.
What did you expect him to do? He's called for debt relief for a while now. He really doesn't have that much influence in European politics.
|
Say what you will about european collaboration. Not one country has given up what is theirs without competition, and competition is fierce in the single market.
That is not true. For example just recently the EU has introduced a punitive tariff on steel to protect the European Steel industry. Which is not something all of the countries would naturally do, because there are some that do not produce steel but would like to buy cheap Chinese steel. Countries like Austria and Luxemburg have given up large parts of their bank secrecies.
But quite obviously, if most politicians that we elect in Europe are neoliberals or just try to slow down the EU like the nationalists, we will get a neoliberal market. That's just how democracy works and it is not a structural fault of the EU. Though some conservatives like Juncker are also slowly getting the message.
When The European Commission announces plans to artificially boost prices by buying up 139,000 tonnes of diary products at a cost to the public purse of £237 million. is that cooperation? The wars are being fought underneath the surface and they are every bit as intense and meaningful as the previous ones. The stakes are just different is all.
Well, maybe then conservatives should stop pumping billions into their clientele. I mean, the subventions are one of those often critizised points about the EU. But we all know, that the moment a country would leave the union their conservative party would pay every cent of subventions for the farmers from state-budget anyways.
|
On November 19 2016 05:08 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 20:56 WhiteDog wrote:
Obama's interventions in europe are such a disappointement. This guy is intelligent, but never take a solid stance when it is needed. So before greeks he ask them not to pursue a capitalism "without soul", yeah suck like you had to tell that to greeks, and before germans he present Merkel like the best leader of them all, when she is basically the one responsible for the greek fiasco. What a joke, less hypocrisy please. What did you expect him to do? He's called for debt relief for a while now. He really doesn't have that much influence in European politics.
You call for debt relief, then you basically criticize the party that would benefit from debt relief and praise the party that oppose it ... Seriously.
Big J's discourse feel like he's stuck in the 90ies early 2000.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 19 2016 05:31 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 05:08 RvB wrote:On November 18 2016 20:56 WhiteDog wrote:
Obama's interventions in europe are such a disappointement. This guy is intelligent, but never take a solid stance when it is needed. So before greeks he ask them not to pursue a capitalism "without soul", yeah suck like you had to tell that to greeks, and before germans he present Merkel like the best leader of them all, when she is basically the one responsible for the greek fiasco. What a joke, less hypocrisy please. What did you expect him to do? He's called for debt relief for a while now. He really doesn't have that much influence in European politics. Big J's discourse feel like he's stuck in the 90ies early 2000.
In that it takes an idealistic, rather than pragmatic, approach to the EU, what it is, and how it functions?
I'm sure we all did, at one time or another. It sounds like a great idea until you dig deeper and understand better what it stands for and represents. Then you will start to see where this deep distrust in the organization that led Britain to vote to leave comes from.
|
What? General misinformation and opportunism from British polititians? And general dislike of free movement of EU nationals?
Since you appear to have dug deeper, why don't you go ahead and tell us what the EU stands for and represents that the rest of us simply don't comprehend but you do?
|
On November 19 2016 05:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 05:31 WhiteDog wrote:On November 19 2016 05:08 RvB wrote:On November 18 2016 20:56 WhiteDog wrote:
Obama's interventions in europe are such a disappointement. This guy is intelligent, but never take a solid stance when it is needed. So before greeks he ask them not to pursue a capitalism "without soul", yeah suck like you had to tell that to greeks, and before germans he present Merkel like the best leader of them all, when she is basically the one responsible for the greek fiasco. What a joke, less hypocrisy please. What did you expect him to do? He's called for debt relief for a while now. He really doesn't have that much influence in European politics. Big J's discourse feel like he's stuck in the 90ies early 2000. In that it takes an idealistic, rather than pragmatic, approach to the EU, what it is, and how it functions? I'm sure we all did, at one time or another. It sounds like a great idea until you dig deeper and understand better what it stands for and represents. Then you will start to see where this deep distrust in the organization that led Britain to vote to leave comes from.
I'm sure most europeans are europeans : they actually like the idea of europe, the solidarity between those countries that have such deep historical connexions.
But in practice, we don't have the actual institutions to permit that solidarity to exist ; only competition. For exemple, Big J show dissatisfaction at the fact that our politician in europe are mostly neoliberal, but the main problem in europe is the absence of a real political debate on europe, as most europeans vote with national agenda in sight. There are no european syndicate (only a shell), no real opposition to bureaucrats, and the way the europe commission behave was even taylored to limit democracy to a certain extent.
It's the institutions that are flawed so it's the institutions that needs to change drastically. But those institutions cannot change because there are no organized civil society to push for such change (see Varouflakis' incapacity to mobilize for his plan B).
|
I don't really see the deep historical connections, for the most part European history is one of continuously bashing each other's heads in. Bureaucratisation isn't bad, as Weber pointed out it's the most important feature of modernity. Bureaucratisation actually guarantees fairness, reasonable distribution of resources, impartial treatment and the rule of law. Whenever we were busy slaughtering each others bureaucracy was suspiciously absent.
There's unprecedented prosperity and peace on this continent ever since we've established the European institutions. The distinction between 'the people' and the 'the institutions' is one that essentially celebrates some kind of tribalism.
|
On November 19 2016 06:04 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 05:34 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2016 05:31 WhiteDog wrote:On November 19 2016 05:08 RvB wrote:On November 18 2016 20:56 WhiteDog wrote:
Obama's interventions in europe are such a disappointement. This guy is intelligent, but never take a solid stance when it is needed. So before greeks he ask them not to pursue a capitalism "without soul", yeah suck like you had to tell that to greeks, and before germans he present Merkel like the best leader of them all, when she is basically the one responsible for the greek fiasco. What a joke, less hypocrisy please. What did you expect him to do? He's called for debt relief for a while now. He really doesn't have that much influence in European politics. Big J's discourse feel like he's stuck in the 90ies early 2000. In that it takes an idealistic, rather than pragmatic, approach to the EU, what it is, and how it functions? I'm sure we all did, at one time or another. It sounds like a great idea until you dig deeper and understand better what it stands for and represents. Then you will start to see where this deep distrust in the organization that led Britain to vote to leave comes from. I'm sure most europeans are europeans : they actually like the idea of europe, the solidarity between those countries that have such deep historical connexions. But in practice, we don't have the actual institutions to permit that solidarity to exist ; only competition. For exemple, Big J show dissatisfaction at the fact that our politician in europe are mostly neoliberal, but the main problem in europe is the absence of a real political debate on europe, as most europeans vote with national agenda in sight. There are no european syndicate (only a shell), no real opposition to bureaucrats, and the way the europe commission behave was even taylored to limit democracy to a certain extent. It's the institutions that are flawed so it's the institutions that needs to change drastically. But those institutions cannot change because there are no organized civil society to push for such change (see Varouflakis' incapacity to mobilize for his plan B).
I would like to hear in what way the institutions would have to change in your opinion. From my point of view I would like to have a stronger parliament, with European parties and a weaker council. But that seems to me like the exact thing that would move Europe too fast forward. A step that many people would not want to take.
|
Stronger parliament will not fix anything, MEPs will still prioritze their country over the union.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 19 2016 09:51 Sent. wrote:
Stronger parliament will not fix anything, MEPs will still prioritze their country over the union.
Any prospect of nations valuing this abstract idea of a "Europe" above their own not-so-abstract notion of a home country? How can we make people agree to give up sovereignty in centuries-old nation-states to support a new, questionably successful coalition of states?
|
We can do this by demystifying the nation state and turn it from some kind of definite institution that provides meaning to an institution that is administrative, in the same sense you treat your state or your municipality. In other words, detach the legal mechanism from the normative values. There's no reason why you need to give up your German identity just because you give up sovereignty.
|
On November 19 2016 09:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 09:51 Sent. wrote:
Stronger parliament will not fix anything, MEPs will still prioritze their country over the union. Any prospect of nations valuing this abstract idea of a "Europe" above their own not-so-abstract notion of a home country? How can we make people agree to give up sovereignty in centuries-old nation-states to support a new, questionably successful coalition of states?
I have no idea. I think we just need to keep reducing economic, legal and social differencies between countries until the idea of Europe will stop sounding so abstract. There is no need to hurry though, it will never work if we try to force it.
To me nation state is like democracy. It's not perfect but it's the best thing available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
