The European Union thread

[Magrathean]

Though this is a general EU thread, i'd like to start with two subjects in particular, one of which was brought up by me and one of which was brought up by Taliesin (both in the Latin-America thread):



1) the EU's international policy concerning political conflicts

Concerning its eastern part, i know that the EU is being hypocritical and stupid. Sure, Romania and Bulgaria or Hungary or whoever it was recently joined, but what about Croatia? Croatia can't join until it resolves any political conflicts it has, namely the dispute of a small coastal region against Slovenia, who claims it even-though it's belonged to Croatia forever. Well, if a country isn't allowed to be in the European Union if it has political conflicts then why isn't a country that's already in it kicked out until it resolves them as well? Now, i'm not sure what the official position of the EU is on this particular matter, but i'm inclined to believe that they support Slovenia.

The two situations i'd like to mention while we're on the political-conflict subject are Gibraltar (Spain vs UK) and the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) (Argentina vs UK). The EU isn't unified in its position on either conflict; about Gibraltar, some countries support Spain and some countries support UK; and, about the Malvinas, some countries support and have even given military help to UK and some countries support Argentina. I don't think any kind of union can be really possible and/or healthy if they only have the same flag and coins but not the same political stance. What do the europeans think about this?



2) why UK didn't join the EU

So why didn't it? I've heard that it is because its currency is more-valuable than the euro and they would lose on the economic side, but i don't think that's the real reason, as i believe this to be more-than-absurd: if 1 pound equals 1.47 euros and you have 1000 pounds, you'll get 1470 euros, so you're not losing anything. I don't think "losing their identity", which Taliesin said his friends mentioned, is the reason either. So what is the real reason?

 

[afz902k]

And about sweden not wanting the Euro, I talked to yet another swede and he claimed to be against it due to not wanting swedish money to be handled by non-swedes.

 

[Child of Time]

You have to keep in mind that the EU is a confederation where the member states (MS's) still are sovereign entities. Depending on which policy area we are talking about, the MS's have given up different amounts of their freedom to decide for themselves. For example, regarding environment, most of the power lies in Brussels. Regarding foreign policy, much less power have been transfered from national to supranational level. For what I know, each MS still has the right to have an independent opinion concerning foreign policy. "United in diversity" as the EU motto reads.

 

[QRV]

Maybe rahvin should transfer the whole discussion from the LA thread? Or leave it there. I guess it doesn't matter.

 

[Siren]

@Undo: You have to keep in mind that the EU started as an economic union. We don't even have the same flag, each country has its own. We're a bunch of different countries that keep their individuality.

As for the UK currency thing, it does have some logic, from what i've heard. It's not simply a matter of getting 1470 euros, it's about the value of the currency. I can't explain it very well since i'm not an economist, but perhaps the UK thinks that they will benefit more in the long run by keeping their pound, for example when the euro drops and the pound is more valuable in comparison.
Another issue that comes to mind is the general idea (if i haven't gotten it wrong) that the money more or less flows from the wealthy countries (such as the UK) to the poorer ones in order to help them develop.

 

[anita_job]

The real reason is probably that the UK doesn't want (or can't) compete with Germany and France for power and influence within the EU. The UK remains firmly in America's orbit politically.

The thrust of the EU is (or will eventually to be) to challenge American hegemony economically and politically. France and Germany are using it to this end, and all the smaller states of Europe have hitched their wagons to Fr and Ger which have two of the most powerful economies on the continent.

 

[Northern Lights]

Well, considering I have an upcoming exam regarding these issues I think I will come out of the shadows to attempt to address them as a kind of practice:

Second things first: You need to make a distinction between the European Union, and the European Monetary Union. Britain is still a member of the EU (albeit an "awkward partner"), and has been since the 1970s, meaning it has access to the single market and is subject to EU regulation, and all other things that come with EU membership. Why it chose not to join the euro, well, that is subject to debate... I'm no economist, nor have we covered the Monetary Union very much in lectures (it's been mostly political policy issues, not economic), but I suspect it has to do with a number of issues. The relative value of the pound is one; Britain's concern with loss of sovereignty is another. Public opinion is probably something of a dealbreaker too; living in the UK, it's interesting to observe the level of europhobia (I use phobia instead of scepticism, because a lot of the time that's what it amounts to) that exists here. There is generally a fear of giving away any kind of control of national issues to the "Brussels bureaucrats".
Also, concerning Siren's point, while Britain likes to complain about the amount of money it pays to the EU, it's actually not the largest net contributor: if I remember correctly, Sweden, among others, belong to that category. Britain has also been one of the largest recipients of regional development funding in the EU, so it does get quite a lot out of it. Every construction site around here usually comes with a little sign sporting the EU flag, declaring that the project is funded by the EU. And believe me, there are a lot of construction sites.

First things second, while there are still attempts at developing a common external policy, that's going to be hard... As others have pointed out, flags and currencies don't make a United States of Europe, the EU is first and foremost an economic union and a free trade area. The specific issues Undo brings up, I haven't read much about in relation to EU policies, but that's not to say there haven't been any form of unity in EU policy towards the world; for example, there's a high degree of unified voting among EU members in the UN. The attempts at conducting dialogue with the Middle East has also generally been effective. Negotiations by EU countries with Iran even managed to convince Iran to not object against the invasion of Afghanistan. It only went well until the US decided to brand Iran as part of the axis of evil, but hey. Granted, most attempts at a common foreign policy have failed... Anyhow, I guess the point I'm trying to make through all this rambling, is that I definitely think that the EU should strive for a more unified foreign policy, if only to act as a check on the power of the US - but given that states' national interests come first, that will be hard. It doesn't make the EU any less of a union, though. Political integration will always be resisted more than economic such.

Reading through the above, I should get back to revision.

 

[Taliesin]

the dispute of a small coastal region against Slovenia, who claims it even-though it's belonged to Croatia forever. Well, if a country isn't allowed to be in the European Union if it has political conflicts then why isn't a country that's already in it kicked out until it resolves them as well? Now, i'm not sure what the official position of the EU is on this particular matter, but i'm inclined to believe that they support Slovenia.

Isnt Marduk slovenian? Maybe we should ask him
Either way, Im inclined to believe that the situation is a bit more complicated than that and that certain croatian media make it look like the evil slovenians took it and wont give it back. Slovenia really isnt one of the more powerful members and if they pulled a stunt as vile and one-sided as you say, what would keep the rest of the member states from pointing their fingers? But it's not like I know anything about it, Im just saying. I'll be looking for info on this one and we'll pick it back up

Euro certainly has its pros, but I believe it being just paper could be simply catastrophic. It doesn't have a backup in gold or any other metal (couldn't have and won't have), and given a world crisis, all of Europe would resent it, no matter if some countries were able to push their way up through their own industries. They all knew it was a big risk, but they took it.

I know the Mark was backed up and I have trouble believing the Euro isnt backed up by a single dime actually. Either way, the Euro has risen to new highs lately, and even though our Economy is based much on export, we've been doing really well anyway. Either way, you keep talking about economic crashes, in the US and now in the EU and it begins to look a bit hysterical. What do you base that on actually?

/E: I just had a talk with a friend of mine who studies political science and he said that not even the dollar is backed up in gold anymore. Somewhere in the 70s, the economic growth exceeded every gold they could have packed away for their dollars, so these days, the economic power of a country is kind of the backup for their currency. Besides, during the great depression, the currencies were indeed backe up in gold and it didnt really do them any good.

 

[Kenneth R.]

The real reason is probably that the UK doesn't want (or can't) compete with Germany and France for power and influence within the EU. The UK remains firmly in America's orbit politically.

The thrust of the EU is (or will eventually to be) to challenge American hegemony economically and politically. France and Germany are using it to this end, and all the smaller states of Europe have hitched their wagons to Fr and Ger which have two of the most powerful economies on the continent.

I definitely agree with you

 

[Magrathean]

EU's policy-diversity:

You have to keep in mind that the EU is a confederation where the member states (MS's) still are sovereign entities. Depending on which policy area we are talking about, the MS's have given up different amounts of their freedom to decide for themselves. For example, regarding environment, most of the power lies in Brussels. Regarding foreign policy, much less power have been transfered from national to supranational level. For what I know, each MS still has the right to have an independent opinion concerning foreign policy. "United in diversity" as the EU motto reads.

You have to keep in mind that the EU started as an economic union. We don't even have the same flag, each country has its own. We're a bunch of different countries that keep their individuality.

but that's not to say there haven't been any form of unity in EU policy towards the world; for example, there's a high degree of unified voting among EU members in the UN. The attempts at conducting dialogue with the Middle East has also generally been effective. Negotiations by EU countries with Iran even managed to convince Iran to not object against the invasion of Afghanistan. It only went well until the US decided to brand Iran as part of the axis of evil, but hey. Granted, most attempts at a common foreign policy have failed... Anyhow, I guess the point I'm trying to make through all this rambling, is that I definitely think that the EU should strive for a more unified foreign policy, if only to act as a check on the power of the US - but given that states' national interests come first, that will be hard. It doesn't make the EU any less of a union, though. Political integration will always be resisted more than economic such.

So the purpose is to become united in purposes of travelling and economy but not politically? Can such a union run well without hitting itself on the head every time a political conflict arises?



UK and EU:

Britain is still a member of the EU (albeit an "awkward partner"), and has been since the 1970s, meaning it has access to the single market and is subject to EU regulation, and all other things that come with EU membership.

Thank you very-much. I thought they were out of the EU.



UK refusing the euro:

Another issue that comes to mind is the general idea (if i haven't gotten it wrong) that the money more or less flows from the wealthy countries (such as the UK) to the poorer ones in order to help them develop.

That would make sense. Bloody-selfish, if you ask me, but it's their decision and i understand it.

Britain's concern with loss of sovereignty (...) living in the UK, it's interesting to observe the level of europhobia (I use phobia instead of scepticism, because a lot of the time that's what it amounts to) that exists here. There is generally a fear of giving away any kind of control of national issues to the "Brussels bureaucrats".

But if Europe ultimately becomes a single country (if that is indeed the long-term plan) then wouldn't it be the same if the throne were in the european city of Brussels as if it were in the european city of London? And i sense a little hypocrisy there: it's alright to take Northern Ireland's sovereignty by the most-deceitful way but not to give british sovereignty to Europe (and still take part in that sovereignty, of course) by peaceful means?



Croatia vs Slovenia:

Isnt Marduk slovenian? Maybe we should ask him

No, he's slovakian.

Im inclined to believe that the situation is a bit more complicated than that and that certain croatian media make it look like the evil slovenians took it and wont give it back. Slovenia really isnt one of the more powerful members and if they pulled a stunt as vile and one-sided as you say, what would keep the rest of the member states from pointing their fingers? But it's not like I know anything about it, Im just saying. I'll be looking for info on this one and we'll pick it back up

It's not that the evil slovenians took it and won't give it back. As far as i know, the situation is as follows: Slovenia's access to water consists of a tiny strip of land that belongs to them. Croatia has always had most of the coast (map; note that that map is wrong and shows Bosnia as possessing more coastal land than it really does; it has even-less than Slovenia). So at the maritime boundary there have been slovenian ships using croatian waters (for fishing, as far as i remember) without permission. Granted, the extent of slovenian water is minimal, but that doesn't give them the right to invade croatian waters without permission. Besides, Croatia has already allowed slovenians several freedoms concerning the maritime boundary between the two countries. So when Croatia protested Slovenia claimed that those waters belonged to them (explanation of part of the conflict). Also, when the slovenian president was asked about it he threatened Croatia: "Croatia should remember that they're not only dealing with Slovenia, but with the whole European Union." The slovenian premier also demanded things from Croatia if Croatia doesn't want Slovenia to "become unfriendly". Another thing one of the slovenian parties said is that Istria (a region that has mostly belonged to Croatia even-though at some points in history it has belonged to Italy -- and has NEVER belonged to Slovenia) should belong to Slovenia "for historical reasons" (what historical reasons, may i ask, if it has never belonged to them?) and that if they don't get Croatia to accept this they'll stand in the way of Croatia entering the EU. The slovenian government is against this proposition, but it's still insane. Now, both Croatia and Slovenia have said that they want to resolve this issue country-to-country and Slovenia later said that it won't slow down the process of Croatia entering the EU, so what was Slovenia doing threatening Croatia like that? And EU hasn't interfered so-far except in mentioning that it will slow down Croatia's entering and in a comment by Brussels that the two countries should take the matter into international arbitrage. This problem has existed ever since Yugoslavia fell. Now, obviously each country's media will exaggerate the situation in favor of its country, but what is indisputable is that the boundaries have been long-established and that Slovenia has no right to claim that part of the sea for themselves.



Other Croatia-EU matters:

Another way in which EU is being an asshole towards Croatia (and Bosnia) is by being much-easier on Serbia (asking them, in order for them to join the EU, only for a few things and forgiving them most of their war criminals and all of their genocides in Bosnia and Croatia) than on Croatia and Bosnia. So-much for uniting Europe, eh?

 

[Taliesin]

So the purpose is to become united in purposes of travelling and economy but not politically? Can such a union run well without hitting itself on the head every time a political conflict arises?

As was already pointed out, the EU is a confederation, with the Member States giving up part of the sovereignty to Brussels. But since the process of finding common ground and some kind of common identity has just begun, I dont see in what way the EU benefit from a centralised and aligned foreign policy. Diversity has always been a strong point in cultures and should remain a strong point inside the EU.

And i sense a little hypocrisy there: it's alright to take Northern Ireland's sovereignty by the most-deceitful way but not to give british sovereignty to Europe (and still take part in that sovereignty, of course) by peaceful means?

I hope you see how those two things are not comparable at all. The EU hasnt invaded the UK and besides, the UK does get things back in return. And with all the UK receives, they are quite reluctant to pay their part back. With a Gross Domestic Product higher than Germany's, they pay only 0,08% of their Net National Income, as opposed to 0,27%. Look for a list of the EU's countries that lists who pays who much with a comparison of economic national power and you'll see how the UK sticks out.
The UK's stand on the EU is a bit condescending at times, on the one hand, they're already paying less than any other comparable country, yet they still find ample cause for complaints. It really doesnt make much sense

 

[hyena]

@the gold enthusiasts: once upon a time there was a system called the gold standard, meaning that currencies could be converted into gold for a given price, anytime, and hoping that not everyone would do that at the same time. this has long been over - specifically, where the euro is concerned, we do have a bunch of gold and a bunch of foreign currency in national central banks and at the ECB to act as a backup, but there's no full convertibility; the situation with the dollar is the same, forget about all Americans showing up on the federal reserve's doorstep and asking for gold for their dollars. when convertibility was suppressed back in the day it was a huge disaster, but right now there is a system in place (cross-providing of reserves, and the IMF) that should serve the same purpose of stabilisation that gold once had.

@the anglosceptics: one word, empire.

 

[Makaan]

As far as the EMU goes i definetly think Sweden should stay out of it, as it would tie more of the decissionmaking abut our ecnonomy to Brussels. Sweden has historicly had an business curve that is the opposite of the larger parts of Europe. We´ve had booms when they´ve had recessions and the other way around. Becouse of this it would be stupid to let the EMU set our interest rates, which is one of the best tools in monitoring the economy. The inflation-roof which EMU countries are forced to stay under further limits the freedom of the Swedish economy, as happened with Germany a few years ago (don´t know if their Economy is running better now though, Taliesin?).

Another reason to stay out of the EMU is the higher prices it will cause, My impression is that when the new currency was introduced all the storeowners rounded up the prices and therefore caused a price rise. This would only happen once, but it´s still a bad effect.

I cant really see that many reasons to join the EMU either (for Sweden, that is). Those that were on the "yes" side during the referendum a couple of years ago often argued that it would strengthen trade, and even though I´m no economist I don´t think the benefits would be that big, as we already have free trade agreements with the rest of Europe. Others argued that we had already promised to join the EMU when we joined the EU (I´m unsure as to what this promise actualy looks like though), that we should join in solidarity with the rest of the states or that it would be impossible to be part of the EU but not the EMU...

...which brings us to the question of EU-membership. I´m having a split opinion when it comes to Sweden being part of the EU. If we´re forced to join the EMU i definetly think we should leave the union, but hopefully this question will not be reaised by the politicians any time soon.

I can definetly see the benefits of being part of the EU. One example is the way we can influence the decisions made by the european parliament, such as the REACH regulation that was passed this winter. But with the possibilty to influence others also comes the possibilty that others make decisions over our heads.

Swedens ecnomomy is heavily regulated, as the social democrat party has been ruling sweden for the majority of the 20th century. We have several state monopolies, such as the selling of alcohol, medecine (sp?) or betting. The state also retains a significant control over railways, leasehold estates, airline business, telecom market, banks, schools, hospitals and so forth. The on medecines has been declared illiegal by the EU, as it hinders foreign companies to establish themselves on the swedish market, and I don´t see that as a bad thing. I´d say thumbs up for coorporation inbetween countries, but no to decisions being made above our heads.

 

[anita_job]

I definitely agree with you

Well I'm coming at it from a Marxist perspective.

 

[Taliesin]

The inflation-roof which EMU countries are forced to stay under further limits the freedom of the Swedish economy, as happened with Germany a few years ago (don´t know if their Economy is running better now though, Taliesin?)

Yea it's fine now. We're down from 3,8% redebt every year to a possible 0,8% I think. Our minister of finances is talking about equalised finances in 2011.. we'll see

I sense a lot of Europhobia there as well thouhg, I mean say Sweden were having a boom time and the rest of Europe were going slow, I dont think Brussels would ruin it for you in terms of interest regulation, that just wouldnt make sense. Besides, as seen in the UK, there are risks as well when you stay out of the EMU

 

[Makaan]

Well I'm coming at it from a Marxist perspective.

Now I haven´t read up much on Marx aside from a few bits and pieces, but pointing out that countries have different agendas than what they´re trying to show doesn´t really make it a marxist analysis. I agree with you though, even if there are several other factors that play in.

Yea it's fine now. We're down from 3,8% redebt every year to a possible 0,8% I think. Our minister of finances is talking about equalised finances in 2011.. we'll see

I sense a lot of Europhobia there as well thouhg, I mean say Sweden were having a boom time and the rest of Europe were going slow, I dont think Brussels would ruin it for you in terms of interest regulation, that just wouldnt make sense. Besides, as seen in the UK, there are risks as well when you stay out of the EMU

Thing is, the interest rates are set for the entirety of the EMU (correct me if I´m wrong), without different ones for different countries. I guess this isn´t much of a problem if we´re talking about the majority of the countries, who i believe have quite similiar business curves, but as Swedens economy behaves a bit different from the rest, the interest rates would propably not be in our favour that often.

I guess I might be a bit Europhibic at times , but I really dislike the thought of even more power being centralised to Brussels.

What do people in Germany think about the euro in general? And btw, how is the current government doing?

 

[hyena]

i confirm that there is indeed one interest rate.

there's a bunch of theories about optimal currency areas that do address exactly the type of concerns makaan is voicing. i had no idea that the swedish economy was countercyclical when compared with continental europe, but if that is the case it is one good technical reason to stay out of the EMU.

i'm totally rusty on macro, having done other things entirely for about five years now, but this discussion is making me feel like catching up a bit.

 

[Taliesin]

What do people in Germany think about the euro in general? And btw, how is the current government doing?

People generally said that everything got more expensive, but statistics proved that both overall prices and prices for food and everyday things stayed within normal ranges of inflation. It's the typical "Back in the day, everything was so much better!"-blathering of narrowminded people. The Euro got nicknamed "Teuro" from "teuer = more expensive"
I dont know, with Germany being a key member of the EU since day one, maybe we have a different perspective, or maybe our media liked to put a different spin to it. I see the EU and EMU as a very good thing, very practical for holidays and short trips. Our government wasnt complaining either really, even with the strain of the disciplinary actions after the 3% margin was violated. The only area where people complain about overregulation is the agricultural, the price settings of the EU often lead to farmers throwing away tons and tons of perfect goods, just so they dont make the prices go down, or at least they used to a few years back

 

[Vizjaqtaar]

Croatia vs Slovenia:
No, he's slovakian. It's not that the evil slovenians took it and won't give it back. As far as i know, the situation is as follows: Slovenia's access to water consists of a tiny strip of land that belongs to them. Croatia has always had most of the coast (map; note that that map is wrong and shows Bosnia as possessing more coastal land than it really does; it has even-less than Slovenia). So at the maritime boundary there have been slovenian ships using croatian waters (for fishing, as far as i remember) without permission. Granted, the extent of slovenian water is minimal, but that doesn't give them the right to invade croatian waters without permission. Besides, Croatia has already allowed slovenians several freedoms concerning the maritime boundary between the two countries. So when Croatia protested Slovenia claimed that those waters belonged to them (explanation of part of the conflict). Also, when the slovenian president was asked about it he threatened Croatia: "Croatia should remember that they're not only dealing with Slovenia, but with the whole European Union."

Back during the times of Yugoslavia, Slovenia had a small passage leading to the open sea. We're claiming something that existed for many a year.

The slovenian premier also demanded things from Croatia if Croatia doesn't want Slovenia to "become unfriendly".

We've been way too friendly for the past 16 years, that's why this problem still exists. Slovenia goes a bit lower with their demands trying to make a compromise, but what does Croatia do? Takes it and gives nothing in return, but rather makes this new state the basis for their demands. Or uses cadastre mapes to define boundaries, of course only where it fits them. Bah, they're twisting it every possible way to get everything and give nothing in return.

Back during the times of Yugoslavia, Slovenia had a small passage leading to the open sea. We're claiming something that existed for many a year.

Actually some 5 years ago both country leaders signed a compromise... And it hasn't been the evil Slovenian parliament that rejected it.

Another thing one of the slovenian parties said is that Istria (a region that has mostly belonged to Croatia even-though at some points in history it has belonged to Italy -- and has NEVER belonged to Slovenia) should belong to Slovenia "for historical reasons" (what historical reasons, may i ask, if it has never belonged to them?) and that if they don't get Croatia to accept this they'll stand in the way of Croatia entering the EU. The slovenian government is against this proposition, but it's still insane.

Haha. I can imagine the president of the Slovenian nationalist party saying that, fits his style perfectly. No idea what the basis for this is though.

but what is indisputable is that the boundaries have been long-established and that Slovenia has no right to claim that part of the sea for themselves.

Utter bullshit, so to say. A lot of the border between Slo and Cro isn't defined, but even if Slovenian's fishing ships violate the undefined border, so does Croatia on the land. However, I believe new buldings deep in the undefined territory are a bigger offence.


This however is a completely bilateral issue and the EU has nothing to do with it, nor does it want to, nor does them Slovenia want to. It also has nothing to do with Croatia not being in the EU, they have more important problems to solve to be able to enter.

 

[hyena]

WAR! VIOLENCE! BLOODSHEED!

I am with the Serbs, just for the sake of it.