EU Policy Challenges 2009-2019

Scofflaw

EU Policy challenges from a pair of reports to the European Parliament:

Two documents on some of the forward policy challenges and choices that are likely to face the European Union in the coming decade.

The first document is a compendium of papers on policy challenges and choices. These papers provide a valuable overview of multiple issues which the EU in general is likely to confront over coming years, together with a series of useful pointers as to how the EU institutions might choose to respond.

The second document is much shorter, and is a synoptic 'EU Policy Challenges', which is a check-list of 69 possible areas for future policy work.

Available here.

An interesting look forward for the next decade.

cordially,
Scofflaw

digme

A FEW POINTS.

Get more tax
make people work more
Building an effective global carbon market
integrated border management strategy and a
common visa system

The Parliament could continue to push for the replacement of the current
national Schengen visas with a uniform 'European Schengen Visum', allowing
for equal treatment of all visa applicants and enhanced solidarity between
Member States so as to improve burden sharing.



Here's where it really takes the piss.

• Even if a lively debate will continue about whether and how far the EU is
complementary or competitive to NATO, it is clear that no Member State can
address today's global challenges alone and that Member States need to
work together and increasingly pool their military
and civilian capabilities.
Whilst the UN, NATO, and the EU will each be the preferred frameworks for
certain situations, increasingly all three will be used simultaneously as the
biggest international challenges - e.g. Kosovo and Afghanistan - require a mix
of different capabilities and policies. The challenge up to 2019 will be to
ensure coherence and unity in the actors' approach and action.

Scofflaw

digme wrote: »

A FEW POINTS.

Get more tax
make people work more
Building an effective global carbon market
integrated border management strategy and a
common visa system

The Parliament could continue to push for the replacement of the current
national Schengen visas with a uniform 'European Schengen Visum', allowing
for equal treatment of all visa applicants and enhanced solidarity between
Member States so as to improve burden sharing.



Here's where it really takes the piss.

• Even if a lively debate will continue about whether and how far the EU is
complementary or competitive to NATO, it is clear that no Member State can
address today's global challenges alone and that Member States need to
work together and increasingly pool their military
and civilian capabilities.
Whilst the UN, NATO, and the EU will each be the preferred frameworks for
certain situations, increasingly all three will be used simultaneously as the
biggest international challenges - e.g. Kosovo and Afghanistan - require a mix
of different capabilities and policies. The challenge up to 2019 will be to
ensure coherence and unity in the actors' approach and action.

How exactly is that "taking the piss"? You feel, perhaps, that internationally coordinated action is superfluous, and actions by individual nations are preferable? That we can best tackle things like pandemics, climate change, poverty, international business and crime through uncoordinated solo actions?

cordially,
Scofflaw

digme

Scofflaw wrote: »

How exactly is that "taking the piss"? You feel, perhaps, that internationally coordinated action is superfluous, and actions by individual nations are preferable? That we can best tackle things like pandemics, climate change, poverty, international business and crime through uncoordinated solo actions?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Let me answer this with a quote from Gordon Brown today.

PM Gordon Brown condemns Taliban attacks in Kabul

Oh, so you prefer the idea of mass invasion, rather than just the USA gong it alone.
EU, NATO, USA, UK and the other parasites, are nothing more than warmongering thugs.

Nody

digme wrote: »

EU, NATO, USA, UK and the other parasites, are nothing more than warmongering thugs.

You're not a thug if you win; then you are a freedom loving hero come to help the poor savages to learn the benefits of Western civilization.

The winner writes the history books after all.

Scofflaw

So there should be no international cooperation because international cooperation can be misused - or, rather, military alliances can also be called "international cooperation"?

That'll fly, I'm sure. I wonder how many things we could apply that argument to?

amused,
Scofflaw

digme

Scofflaw wrote: »

So there should be no international cooperation because international cooperation can be misused - or, rather, military alliances can also be called "international cooperation"?

That'll fly, I'm sure. I wonder how many things we could apply that argument to?

amused,
Scofflaw

International cooperation in what exactly?Invasions?Why is the document you posted referring to Afghanistan as a challenge?The EU should pool it's resources together to meet such challenges,is invasion the new fashion in Ireland now?

oscarBravo

digme wrote: »

Why is the document you posted referring to Afghanistan as a challenge?

Why do you believe Afghanistan isn't a challenge?

Scofflaw

digme wrote: »

International cooperation in what exactly?Invasions?Why is the document you posted referring to Afghanistan as a challenge?The EU should pool it's resources together to meet such challenges,is invasion the new fashion in Ireland now?

Afghanistan certainly is a challenge. Some people - yourself, apparently - regard it as purely a military challenge, but there's a huge civilian challenge there too, which is where the EU would come in.

cordially,
Scofflaw

digme

Scofflaw wrote: »

Afghanistan certainly is a challenge. Some people - yourself, apparently - regard it as purely a military challenge, but there's a huge civilian challenge there too, which is where the EU would come in.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Does that line normally work?
Apparently you feel the EU is correct in their language.
So let me get this straight,your ok with invasions, just as long as it is with a bit of help and cooperation from other countries.And your view is that since they are now occupiers, it is their moral obligation to help the rich people of Afghanistan.Oh please!The language of that documented you posted reeks of hypocrisy,corruption,human rights abuses,torture,murder,greed, and dare I say terrorism.

Scofflaw

digme wrote: »

Does that line normally work?
Apparently you feel the EU is correct in their language.
So let me get this straight,your ok with invasions, just as long as it is with a bit of help and cooperation from other countries.And your view is that since they are now occupiers, it is their moral obligation to help the rich people of Afghanistan.Oh please!The language of that documented you posted reeks of hypocrisy,corruption,human rights abuses,torture,murder,greed, and dare I say terrorism.

I'm not sure where I said I was OK with invasions, unless it was inside your head...indeed I seem to have said quite a lot of stuff while I was there.

Tell you what, let's have a discussion about the identified EU policy issues for the next decade, rather than a mad rant about Afghanistan - but I'll quite happily note that you have an issue with that part of the document. If you'd like a discussion about the EU's role in Afghanistan, you're welcome to start such a thread yourself.

regards,
Scofflaw

digme

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure where I said I was OK with invasions, unless it was inside your head...indeed I seem to have said quite a lot of stuff while I was there.

Tell you what, let's have a discussion about the identified EU policy issues for the next decade, rather than a mad rant about Afghanistan - but I'll quite happily note that you have an issue with that part of the document. If you'd like a discussion about the EU's role in Afghanistan, you're welcome to start such a thread yourself.

regards,
Scofflaw

Perhaps you'd like to make your position clear on the issues I have highlighted, since I went to the trouble of reading the entire document you posted for discussion,I assume that is why you posted it?Perhaps, then, I will have a conversation with you about those other issues.

View

Maybe it is the mention of the UN that upsets digme?

Maybe He/She is be one of those always on the lookout for the "UN's black helicopters"?

Scofflaw

digme wrote: »

Perhaps you'd like to make your position clear on the issues I have highlighted, since I went to the trouble of reading the entire document you posted for discussion,I assume that is why you posted it?Perhaps, then, I will have a conversation with you about those other issues.

I've made my position clear, I thought - there's a civilian challenge in respect of Afghanistan, and I think the EU should be involved. There's also a Great Game type geostrategic/neocolonial war going on there, which I oppose - it's never going to get the necessary support for the US/UK to finish it decisively, and it's equally unlikely that the US and friends will pull out, which means that it will drag on interminably, with concomitant damage to the possibility of an Afghan civil order, and consequent pain and death for the Afghans.

However, let me also be clear that that's one of the least interesting of all the issues raised in the document, unless the Parliament do actually follow through on their proposal - that's the bit you didn't include:

To ensure that it is fully involved in this process, options for the European Parliament include establishing a regular European Security Strategy Review, closer scrutiny of the ESDP, and/or using more intensively the power of the purse.

I'm interested in how the Parliament could use the "power of the purse" to influence what is in essence EU foreign policy, but I'm not even slightly interested in debating the issue of whether Afghanistan is a justified war, because that's a separate debate. Currently, we have no say on whether the EU should get involved, or how it should get involved - whether it should be seeking to ameliorate the situation, or to end the war - and what interests me about this part of the document is solely whether the Parliament can indeed exercise any influence.

So, let me just clarify that - a discussion of whether the Afghan war is justified, and whether the UN/US/UK/EU or anyone else with "U" in their initials are a bunch of baby-murdering thugs or not is entirely off-topic, and will be treated as such.

regards,
Scofflaw

evercloserunion

digme, you are being silly. Military coordination can be used to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid and assist civilian efforts to cope with things like natural disasters. The EU member states, including Ireland, also have a long and proud history of peacekeeping in troubled areas where it is essential to protect the lives of civilians and the rebuilding of sovereign nations.

Overheal

evercloserunion wrote: »

digme, you are being silly. Military coordination can be used to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid and assist civilian efforts to cope with things like natural disasters. The EU member states, including Ireland, also have a long and proud history of peacekeeping in troubled areas where it is essential to protect the lives of civilians and the rebuilding of sovereign nations.

If youve been following the Haiti thread in AH the headlines have taken a turn in a bad way. Healthcare workers and Aid distributors are calling for more security amidst fears for their safety and looters have taken to ransacking UN warehouses in the Capital, full of goods to be distributed. This comes ahead of the arrival of some 5,500 United States Marines to provide security and peacekeeping detail. The airforce was one of the first entities out there last week it should also be mentioned, to establish ATC and coordinate inbound and outbound traffic. Given the relative closeness too, the Coast Guard has been doing Cutter Runs full of supplies and personnel also.

Long Story short, theres a lot the Military is trained equipped and capable of doing beyond the confines of War.

JohnMearsheimer

If the EU is going to be taken more seriously it will have to sort out its CFSP. At the moment there doesn't seem to be much in common about it. The stances of Britain, France and Germany at the beginning of the the Iraq war highlighted just how fragmented things are. A strong and unified EU could stand up to the US, China and other rising powers. Good luck trying to integrate the foreign policies of 27 countries though!

ei.sdraob

digme wrote: »

International cooperation in what exactly?Invasions?Why is the document you posted referring to Afghanistan as a challenge?The EU should pool it's resources together to meet such challenges,is invasion the new fashion in Ireland now?

How about acting in a coordinated manner in disasters like Haiti few weeks ago?

evercloserunion

JohnMearsheimer wrote: »

If the EU is going to be taken more seriously it will have to sort out its CFSP. At the moment there doesn't seem to be much in common about it. The stances of Britain, France and Germany at the beginning of the the Iraq war highlighted just how fragmented things are. A strong and unified EU could stand up to the US, China and other rising powers. Good luck trying to integrate the foreign policies of 27 countries though!

Yeah the problem there is with Britain, who seem content to be the US's lapdog. The different stances of the different member states in relation to the Iraq war was not a result of a disunited union, but rather a symptom of one of the root causes of disunity. The great thing about the EU is that you never have to shove a round peg into a square hole, you can mold the peg to whatever shape fits, ie cooperation between member states need only go so far as is possible and beneficial. The flip side of that of course is that you can get member states acting against European interests and European values by joining the US on its crusades, but at least they are not doing so in the name of the EU and therefore are not bringing the EU into disrepute. That is, however, little consolation to the people on the receiving end of UK/US bullets and bombs.

JohnMearsheimer

evercloserunion wrote: »

Yeah the problem there is with Britain, who seem content to be the US's lapdog. The different stances of the different member states in relation to the Iraq war was not a result of a disunited union, but rather a symptom of one of the root causes of disunity. The great thing about the EU is that you never have to shove a round peg into a square hole, you can mold the peg to whatever shape fits, ie cooperation between member states need only go so far as is possible and beneficial. The flip side of that of course is that you can get member states acting against European interests and European values by joining the US on its crusades, but at least they are not doing so in the name of the EU and therefore are not bringing the EU into disrepute. That is, however, little consolation to the people on the receiving end of UK/US bullets and bombs.

I agree. Britain has to get over any delusions it has over having a 'special relationship' with the US. The US will use and abuse it. Its like being friends with the captain of the football team or something. For the most part I think the EU is good at reaching consensus but deepening Euro skepticism in Britain (plus a likely new Tory government in the next few months) will make sorting out the CFSP harder. Things might be easier if Britain just left the EU instead of sitting on the fence between the EU/US.

ei.sdraob

JohnMearsheimer wrote: »

I agree. Britain has to get over any delusions it has over having a 'special relationship' with the US. The US will use and abuse it. Its like being friends with the captain of the football team or something. For the most part I think the EU is good at reaching consensus but deepening Euro skepticism in Britain (plus a likely new Tory government in the next few months) will make sorting out the CFSP harder. Things might be easier if Britain just left the EU instead of sitting on the fence between the EU/US.

well as Nial Ferguson said its ironic that the ex empire's colony has now taken over of running the Empire, but doesn't want to admit to imperialism

View

JohnMearsheimer wrote: »

If the EU is going to be taken more seriously it will have to sort out its CFSP. At the moment there doesn't seem to be much in common about it.

CFSP as it current stands operates on the basis that, where they can reach agreement on a common position, the member states will adopt and follow a common policy. There is no obligation on them to adopt or follow a common policy though.

To make it work better, it would help if the member states followed Chirac's comment that "... they missed a great opportunity to shut up" and avoided babbling to the media until they have figured out what they could do together.