The future of the EU - aka a no slagging allowed thread

Orion

Seriously.

I've read most threads on this forum and haven't participated because of the "you're wrong - you're full of shit - you're an idiot" comments. Some thread titles have put me off even reading them:
cf: "Ok, now please leave EU"
"For those of you who voted yes..."
"I don't think people realise the corner they have put Ireland in......."
"Thank you Ireland.. "

Could we just have a thread that actually debates the future of the EU without any idiocy?

I voted no. I'm happy with my vote and obviously with the result. I think the EU has a future without Lisbon.

I don't like the comments from Barroso regarding ratifying the treaty without Ireland. Or from the German guy - can't find his name - who said we've ruined the EU for 500 million people. So let's have none of those arguments because they're just destructive.

It's constructive time!

Why can't the EU have room for every state to have a commissioner? Why not 1 per state or 2 per state? The EU is a collection of countries and every country should be represented at all levels. We are not a federation - we are a Union. Look at the US - 50 states = 100 Senators - 2 from each state regardless of population.

Require UN sanction for military action. Yes the UN needs to be reformed - the permanent members shouldn't have a veto - but ignoring the UN is not the answer. The EU (even after Lisbon) does not require UN sanction for military intervention.

Allow abortion and conscription in Ireland will ya? ... ok that's a joke


I had other issues with Lisbon but they were my main two. Let the rational debate begin

P_1

Right, first post on this forum be gentle:pac:

First re the comparison between the Commissioners and US Senators.
The main differences between the two are that
1) US Senators are directly elected where the Commissioners are appointed by the respective governments.
2) The purpose of the Commissioners is to have them act in the interests of the Union as opposed to their individual states where the Senators act in the interests of the States they represent.

Secondly, re the 2/3 commissioner as per Lisbon.
I wonder how people would have felt if the term of the commission was reduced to say 2 or 3 years. I'd imagine not having a commissioner for 2 or 3 years out of 4 or 6 would be a less bitter pill to swallow than 5 out of 15.

Re the future of the EU
Maybe it may be better to start from scratch and just write a new constitution/fundaamental document (preferably in a similar format to the US constitution) that is easily understandable to all than to continue to try to ammend what is currently there. Then All member states should hold votes on this new document which hopefully should be in simple language and of course have a better yes argument than Lisbon had.

Just a few musings there..

Orion

US Senators are supposed to act in the interests of the country too. Allegedly. But re-election is always a priority.
In the EU the appointed is supposed to remove that - but do you really believe it does?

The EU has a population of ~500m while the US has a poulation of ~310m. It would be unfair in either to expect that a local politician would be impartial. He/she would always be looking after his own.

P_1

Macros42 wrote: »

US Senators are supposed to act in the interests of the country too. Allegedly. But re-election is always a priority.
In the EU the appointed is supposed to remove that - but do you really believe it does?

The EU has a population of ~500m while the US has a poulation of ~310m. It would be unfair in either to expect that a local politician would be impartial. He/she would always be looking after his own.

Well I'd like to hope that I'm cynical enough not to believe so. Maybe the 2/3 commissioner thing was intended to stamp that out but I believe that with a term of 5 years that is unrealistic to expect any country's peopple to agree to vote for that.

marco_polo

Macros42 wrote: »

Seriously.

I've read most threads on this forum and haven't participated because of the "you're wrong - you're full of shit - you're an idiot" comments. Some thread titles have put me off even reading them:
cf: "Ok, now please leave EU"
"For those of you who voted yes..."
"I don't think people realise the corner they have put Ireland in......."
"Thank you Ireland.. "

Could we just have a thread that actually debates the future of the EU without any idiocy?

I voted no. I'm happy with my vote and obviously with the result. I think the EU has a future without Lisbon.

I don't like the comments from Barroso regarding ratifying the treaty without Ireland. Or from the German guy - can't find his name - who said we've ruined the EU for 500 million people. So let's have none of those arguments because they're just destructive.

It's constructive time!

Why can't the EU have room for every state to have a commissioner? Why not 1 per state or 2 per state? The EU is a collection of countries and every country should be represented at all levels. We are not a federation - we are a Union. Look at the US - 50 states = 100 Senators - 2 from each state regardless of population.

Require UN sanction for military action. Yes the UN needs to be reformed - the permanent members shouldn't have a veto - but ignoring the UN is not the answer. The EU (even after Lisbon) does not require UN sanction for military intervention.

Allow abortion and conscription in Ireland will ya? ... ok that's a joke


I had other issues with Lisbon but they were my main two. Let the rational debate begin

I think that the EU need to move forward as standing still is not an option with the prospect of future growth.

On the point of the commision the problem is that each one has a specific area such as Agriculture, Finance etc, the Parliament was designed to be the true representative area of the EU and was to have its powers increased under the EU. The commission was simply not designed this way. Is it really any worse than domestically in Ireland when a constituency has no minister for example.

Personally I am not against a common defense policy in any shape or form (I also am not a supporter of our neutrallity either but that is another days work), ideally there would be some form of UN safeguard in any proposal, but as you say it is a weak organisation in major need of reform.

Also I think to be fair both France and Germany (just picking two of the biggest nations here) are generally very conservative and responsible countries when it comes to conflict and have a very excellent track record over the past 50 years in this regard and have shown few signs of any wish to become agressors. When you look at the dithering over the Balkans 15 odd years ago it is a reasonable arguement to be made for a unified EU policy on defense, and a strong EU could have saved alot of lives in the face of UN dithering.

I still think the core of the Lisbon treaty is a good framework and should not be thrown away completely.

pithater1 wrote: »

Well I'd like to hope that I'm cynical enough not to believe so. Maybe the 2/3 commissioner thing was intended to stamp that out but I believe that with a term of 5 years that is unrealistic to expect any country's peopple to agree to vote for that.

The other way of looking at that is that a term of less than five years would make it difficult for any commisioner to complete any medium or longer term projects of any value. Five years is a pretty standard political term in my view.

IRLConor

Macros42 wrote: »

Why can't the EU have room for every state to have a commissioner? Why not 1 per state or 2 per state?

Think of it this way, they're all going to want an approximately equal chance to discuss an issue (otherwise what's the point in having a seat at the table? (Not just that, but all commissioners are required to turn up to every meeting)). If you give every member only one minute on an issue you're looking at close to half an hour. Now imagine giving them 6 minutes like TDs get for questions in the Dáil, that adds up to 2 hours 40 mins for discussing a single issue. Simply having that many people at the table makes things unwieldy.

IRLConor

Macros42 wrote: »

US Senators are supposed to act in the interests of the country too. Allegedly. But re-election is always a priority.
In the EU the appointed is supposed to remove that - but do you really believe it does?

The EU has a population of ~500m while the US has a poulation of ~310m. It would be unfair in either to expect that a local politician would be impartial. He/she would always be looking after his own.

That's one of the main reasons they aren't directly elected I think.

If they were directly elected by a constituency of citizens they'd be much less likely to act impartially.

Orion

IRLConor wrote: »

Think of it this way, they're all going to want an approximately equal chance to discuss an issue (otherwise what's the point in having a seat at the table? (Not just that, but all commissioners are required to turn up to every meeting)). If you give every member only one minute on an issue you're looking at close to half an hour. Now imagine giving them 6 minutes like TDs get for questions in the Dáil, that adds up to 2 hours 40 mins for discussing a single issue. Simply having that many people at the table makes things unwieldy.

And what's the problem with that? They're being paid to do a job - heavens forbid they might actually have to work for it. We're talking about having a few more Commissioners not having none. So they may have to spend an extra hour discussing a major issue - is that a problem?

IRLConor wrote: »

That's one of the main reasons they aren't directly elected I think.

If they were directly elected by a constituency of citizens they'd be much less likely to act impartially.

I implied that. My point was that they won't be impartial anyway if it concerns a national interest. And if countries have no representation that just means they'll be at a disadvantage. I also firmly believe that political sway will only advantage the larger countries. Even when Germany (just to pick an example) has no Comissioner they would use their heavy political influence to sway votes.

marco_polo

IRLConor wrote: »

That's one of the main reasons they aren't directly elected I think.

If they were directly elected by a constituency of citizens they'd be much less likely to act impartially.

To the best of my knowledge US Senators are directly elected IrlConor (Which is why they tend to be quite outspoken on contraversial issues).

IRLConor

Macros42 wrote: »

And what's the problem with that? They're being paid to do a job - heavens forbid they might actually have to work for it. We're talking about having a few more Commissioners not having none. So they may have to spend an extra hour discussing a major issue - is that a problem?

It's not a problem if they spend an extra hour discussing a major issue. It is a problem if they spend and extra hour discussing a minor issue though.

If they spend all their time in meetings they'll never get any work done. They need time to work on their proposals, meet with their staff, do all the backroom wheedling and horse-trading needed to get people to support their DG's projects and so on.

Macros42 wrote: »

I implied that. My point was that they won't be impartial anyway if it concerns a national interest. And if countries have no representation that just means they'll be at a disadvantage. I also firmly believe that political sway will only advantage the larger countries. Even when Germany (just to pick an example) has no Comissioner they would use their heavy political influence to sway votes.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not convinced either way. It's not that big of a deal though since the commission is really just a source of legislation, not a decisive body. The power to approve or reject legislation lies with the council and parliament and everyone has a seat at those tables.

Orion

marco_polo wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge US Senators are directly elected IrlConor (Which is why they tend to be quite outspoken on contraversial issues).

He was talking about EU Commissioners. US Senators are directly elected.

IRLConor

marco_polo wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge US Senators are directly elected IrlConor (Which is why they tend to be quite outspoken on contraversial issues).

Sorry, I was referring to Commissioners not being directly elected.

US Senators suffer the same drawbacks as US Congresspeople and Dáil TDs in that they are directly beholden to their local constituency and hence spend too much time on parochial crap and not enough time on the big issues. US Senators aren't as bad as Dáil TDs on that matter since their constituency is bigger, but it's still a problem.

marco_polo

IRLConor wrote: »

Sorry, I was referring to Commissioners not being directly elected.

US Senators suffer the same drawbacks as US Congresspeople and Dáil TDs in that they are directly beholden to their local constituency and hence spend too much time on parochial crap and not enough time on the big issues. US Senators aren't as bad as Dáil TDs on that matter since their constituency is bigger, but it's still a problem.

Doh! Sorry it is very late, I misread the last few posts, I think it is time for me to withdraw for the evening and recharge my batteries.

sink

I put forward a pretty extreme idea for how to solve the commissioner issue in this thread.

Could the commission be replaced by a cabinet of MEP's?

So far it's the only viable alternative to the current or Lisbon setup that I've seen.

Orion

sink wrote: »

...

Don't know what you did there but this is the link you wanted. Too tired now - I'll read it tomorrow (it's long) and reply then.

[edit]You do agree that cats are evil right?

IRLConor

sink wrote: »

I put forward a pretty extreme idea for how to solve the commissioner issue in this thread.

Could the commission be replaced by a cabinet of MEP's?

So far it's the only viable alternative to the current or Lisbon setup that I've seen.

Either that or flat out abolish the commission and move the DGs under the relevant sitting of the council of ministers. It would mean flying our national politicians to Brussels/Luxembourg more than we currently do which would drag them away from national interests.

MEPs would probably be a better choice since they'd be in Brussels more. How you select them is a massive can of worms though. That, and there are a bunch of oddballs in the EP that you don't really want anywhere near anything important.

marco_polo

IRLConor wrote: »

Either that or flat out abolish the commission and move the DGs under the relevant sitting of the council of ministers. It would mean flying our national politicians to Brussels/Luxembourg more than we currently do which would drag them away from national interests.

MEPs would probably be a better choice since they'd be in Brussels more. How you select them is a massive can of worms though. That, and there are a bunch of oddballs in the EP that you don't really want anywhere near anything important.

I don't think there is any way that we can directly elect commisioners fairly and end up in any way better, certainly not for a country of only 4.5 million people. No matter how you carve it up not every country will be able to have one and we will end up back at square one.

If we don't decrease the size of the commission and instead keep going as is, we will end up with diluted commisions such as a commisioner for team sports or shellfish or dairy farming (Being slightly ridiculous here). If that is that case you might as well have none for 5 years anyway.

As alluded to youself alot of MEPs are loonies, Communists, Facists or Euroskeptics and using the national ministers would be like akin to asking people to work two full time jobs.

IRLConor

marco_polo wrote: »

If we don't decrease the size of the commission and instead keep going as is, we will end up with diluted commisions such as a commisioner for team sports or shellfish or dairy farming (Being slightly ridiculous here).

If Wikipedia's to be believed there are already 'turf wars' between some of the DGs since there isn't enough turf to go around.

I do feel sorry for Leonard Orban though. Imagine having to deal with the equivalent of 27 countries worth of militant Gaelgóirs!

marco_polo wrote: »

using the national ministers would be like akin to asking people to work two full time jobs.

Well, they already have two full time jobs. It would merely be a case of expanding one of them. Still though, you're right, they're too busy as it is.

tolosenc

Macros42 wrote: »

Require UN sanction for military action. Yes the UN needs to be reformed - the permanent members shouldn't have a veto - but ignoring the UN is not the answer. The EU (even after Lisbon) does not require UN sanction for military intervention.

Can I get a source for that one, please? I've heard it a few times, but never found it in the treaty text. Section, article and paragraph number if you have them handy.

Orion

Exactly - it's not in the treaty text - any treaty. It would only be there if UN sanction was required.

axer

Where is the EU heading?
I believe it is ultimately heading to federalisation. We might fight it at first but as can be seen from the rejection of this treaty, the EU will attempt to bully us asking who are we to say no to the EU. Our government will give in in any case as it will do this time and our voice will be lost.

Do I want a United States of Europe?
No

Why not?
because we will become a dot in the european sea being controlled from a far off place by much larger countries. How could that possibly help us? I would question why we could possibly need it.

IRLConor

Macros42 wrote: »

Exactly - it's not in the treaty text - any treaty. It would only be there if UN sanction was required.

The main reason people are wary about requiring a UN mandate is the veto at the UN Security Council level. Ireland would probably be happy with a UN mandate requirement but other countries probably don't want to run the risk of the USA, Russia or China hamstringing them in a moment of need.

Imagine a small country with state owned oil production facilities. The state does a deal with the EU to sell it oil at low prices in return for EU assistance building infrastructure in the country. Then an insurgency breaks out in the country which is supported covertly by the USA/China/Russia in a move to try and open up the oil deal. The UN tries to intervene with a peace-keeping force but is vetoed by the USA/China/Russia.

Now, Ireland can afford to sit back and demand a UN mandate in most conflicts like this since we're rarely, if ever, affected by civil wars in other countries. We don't have any large industries dependent on raw materials from faraway places. The larger nations in the EU have no such luxury. It's distasteful, but the realpolitik of global economics/politics is that countries are going to fight over scarce resources and it isn't difficult to end up in a situation where the UN will be powerless to stop it due to the involvement of one of the UNSC permanent members.

If the vetos were removed from the UN Security Council permanent members I'd be all for a UN mandate requirement for the deployment of EU forces.

As it is, Lisbon was enough of a guarantee for me since Ireland was able to opt out of any mission it didn't wish to contribute to.

axer

IRLConor wrote: »

As it is, Lisbon was enough of a guarantee for me since Ireland was able to opt out of any mission it didn't wish to contribute to.

Is Ireland's name not on all those missions still though if the EU were to be involved in some war i.e. are we suddenly an EU target (not a target of the EU, I mean a target for some other country).

What happens if the EU gets as greedy as the USA? You admit that the larger countries need their scarce resources. What happens if they cannot get access to them for some reason - economic or otherwise? Will we end up with Ireland and the UN powerless to stop them? It will be the EU on the side of those tanks etc and since we are in the EU then we are no different than a state like Oregon IF it sent no troops from that state - those being attacked would not see the difference.

IRLConor

axer wrote: »

Is Ireland's name not on all those missions still though if the EU were to be involved in some war i.e. are we suddenly an EU target (not a target of the EU, I mean a target for some other country).

Would Ireland get blamed for a UN mission it's not involved in? Same answer.

It depends on the country which is pointing the finger of blame. If they're run by sane rational people they'll realise that Ireland was not involved. If they're nutters well then it's anyone's guess.

axer wrote: »

What happens if the EU gets as greedy as the USA?

They already are. So are we, we just don't have the teeth to do anything about it.

axer wrote: »

You admit that the larger countries need their scarce resources. What happens if they cannot get access to them for some reason - economic or otherwise?

They'll fight for them. It's the way it has been for thousands of years and isn't going to stop any time soon.

axer wrote: »

Will we end up with Ireland and the UN powerless to stop them?

We're already powerless to stop any other sovereign country from going to war. What would change?

axer wrote: »

It will be the EU on the side of those tanks etc and since we are in the EU then we are no different than a state like Oregon IF it sent no troops from that state - those being attacked would not see the difference.

What about Irish troops in Kosovo with KFOR (a NATO-led mission)?
What about Irish troops in Afghanistan with ISAF (also NATO-led)?

Do we get seen as members of NATO and targeted for those?

I think most sane leaders in the world can tell the difference between a US state and an EU member state. As for the mad leaders? Well, you can't count on them anyway.

axer

IRLConor wrote: »

Would Ireland get blamed for a UN mission it's not involved in? Same answer.

A UN mission would be different than an EU mission as there are 192 members of the UN whereas only 27 in the EU.

IRLConor wrote: »

They already are. So are we, we just don't have the teeth to do anything about it.

Are we? Do we want to give the EU teeth?

IRLConor wrote: »

They'll fight for them. It's the way it has been for thousands of years and isn't going to stop any time soon.

Do we want our names on it?

IRLConor wrote: »

We're already powerless to stop any other sovereign country from going to war. What would change?

They could be fighting with the EU symbol on the side of the tanks - thats us too then.

IRLConor wrote: »

What about Irish troops in Kosovo with KFOR (a NATO-led mission)?
What about Irish troops in Afghanistan with ISAF (also NATO-led)?

Do we get seen as members of NATO and targeted for those?

I think there is a geographic difference in that the EU defence could be seen like the USA - a more specific target.

IRLConor wrote: »

I think most sane leaders in the world can tell the difference between a US state and an EU member state. As for the mad leaders? Well, you can't count on them anyway.

There won't be much difference in a federal europe which is where the EU is headed.

IRLConor

axer wrote: »

A UN mission would be different than an EU mission as there are 192 members of the UN whereas only 27 in the EU.

Numbers alone do not lend legitimacy. Or are you trying to say that we can hide in the noise of the UN but we're more obvious in the EU?

axer wrote: »

Are we?

I reckon if we had the geopolitical clout we'd pillage with the rest of them. From what I've seen, countries don't have morals. People do certainly, but countries appear (to me) to act primarily in their self interest.

axer wrote: »

Do we want to give the EU teeth? Whats wrong with NATO or the UN?

We wouldn't really be giving the EU much in the way of teeth TBH.

The problem with NATO and the UN is that there are countries without European interests at heart who have massive control (USA in NATO) or a veto (USA/China/Russia).

axer wrote: »

Do we want our names on it?

They could be fighting with the EU symbol on the side of the tanks - thats us too then.

There are two issues here.

1. Whether or not the EU will send troops overseas under the EU flag.
2. Whether or not Ireland should be involved.

The way I see it:

1. This will happen anyway. If Ireland's not involved, it will still happen with another group of countries and it will still be identified as an EU force.
2. I think Ireland (and the other countries) should pick and choose which missions they wish to be associated with.

axer wrote: »

I think there is a geographic difference in that the EU defence could be seen like the USA - a more specific target.

Maybe, maybe not. Odds are there'll be tanks in a foreign country with an EU symbol on them some time in the future whether we agree to it or not.

axer wrote: »

There won't be much difference in a federal europe which is where the EU is headed.

...in your opinion.

There's no guarantee of a federal Europe. In fact I think it will be quite unlikely to look anything like the USA. There's too much cultural difference between the member states and the principle of subsidiarity is deeply embedded within the heart of the union.

Orion

IRLConor wrote: »

If the vetos were removed from the UN Security Council permanent members I'd be all for a UN mandate requirement for the deployment of EU forces.

As it is, Lisbon was enough of a guarantee for me since Ireland was able to opt out of any mission it didn't wish to contribute to.

I agree about the flaws in the UNSC model but there is a major difference between the UN and the EU and that's that the UN is a peacekeeping organisation (in theory at least) whereas the EU is an economic one. The US was formed for this purpose and despite its failings still should be the one to sanction military force imo.

Fuascailt

Macros42 wrote: »

Seriously.


Why can't the EU have room for every state to have a commissioner? Why not 1 per state or 2 per state? The EU is a collection of countries and every country should be represented at all levels. We are not a federation - we are a Union. Look at the US - 50 states = 100 Senators - 2 from each state regardless of population.

We have the European Parliament, isnt that our equivalent of the US Senate.

As I see it, the commision issue is a bit like Ireland having too many junior ministers. With too many commisioners, the power and efficiency of the Commision is diluted. They have to make up jobs so that everyone has something to do. I'm not sure, but I think the Finance portfolio has something like four or five commisioners, surely that defeats the whole purpose. As well as that, Commisioners arent working for their country. A point is made to give commisioners areas that dont have much to do with their country.

IRLConor

Macros42 wrote: »

I agree about the flaws in the UNSC model but there is a major difference between the UN and the EU and that's that the UN is a peacekeeping organisation (in theory at least) whereas the EU is an economic one. The US was formed for this purpose and despite its failings still should be the one to sanction military force imo.

The problem is that the UN is currently broken and there's no political will to fix it among the permanent members of the UNSC.

Until it's fixed, other groups of countries will need to fill the gaps somehow. Multilateral action by broad alliances is the next best thing. That's where the EU comes in.

BlitzKrieg

Multilateral action by broad alliances is the next best thing.

heh, isnt that what led us to world war 1


on the military issue, how substantial is its capability to conduct operations outside the EU in its current set up? How I read it was the military being a combination of peacekeeping and security.

With the EU expanding further into the eastern states the chances of instability among members who have *recent* or *ancient* history is much higher. Especially when we get closer to new countries like Kosovo or old states like Turkey. I was under the impression the EU common defence policy was being used as a tool to ensure that

A) these new states within the union keep in check in the future.

Reassurance to new members that they have the full support of the EU as members.

It hasnt been an issue up until now because the western european states both politically and geographically have no military risks.

the EU has shown no interest to date in supporting any individual states insterest of conquest or war, England has never recieved its support and neither has any other state (cant think of any but I believe there was an issue with France at one point?)

O'Morris

IRLConor wrote: »

Multilateral action by broad alliances is the next best thing. That's where the EU comes in.

Why does the EU need to be the vehicle for that alliance though? If there is a strong case to be a made for a military alliance between European countries, then why can't the countries in favour of the idea get together and form some kind of NATO-like alliance themselves, independently of the EU?