Irish may point way to a deeper sense of EU identity

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Moderately interesting article in the IT, which I think poses an interesting question that I'd like to take in a different direction to the author.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-may-point-way-to-a-deeper-sense-of-eu-identity-1.1610791?page=2

And why have Irish elites, like elites in other member states, been willing to surrender decision-making capacity and to forgo domestic promotion prospects (even if much brighter prospects beckon for the few at EU level)?

I'd suggest the reason that national elites support the EU is because they see it as supporting, rather than challenging, their position. The folk who stand to lose out of the EU are the broader domestic populations. Also, EU decision making structures are quite good at closing out and excluding domestic populations, and effectively just broker agreements between national elites.

Across Europe, all elites are well aware of the regions declining fortunes in a global context. Their motivation in support of the EU has to do with trying to maintain their status and material wellbeing in that global context.

micosoft

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Moderately interesting article in the IT, which I think poses an interesting question that I'd like to take in a different direction to the author.I'd suggest the reason that national elites support the EU is because they see it as supporting, rather than challenging, their position. The folk who stand to lose out of the EU are the broader domestic populations. Also, EU decision making structures are quite good at closing out and excluding domestic populations, and effectively just broker agreements between national elites.

Across Europe, all elites are well aware of the regions declining fortunes in a global context. Their motivation in support of the EU has to do with trying to maintain their status and material wellbeing in that global context.

Do you have any evidence for the above or is it just more unsubstantiated anti-EU rhetoric?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

micosoft wrote: »

Do you have any evidence for the above or is it just more unsubstantiated anti-EU rhetoric?

Well, I'd point to the failed Lisbon Strategy as evidence that European elites at least diagnosed (well over a decade ago) that Europe is in decline. Beyond that, as I thought was clear from my post, I'm putting forward an alternative interpretation to that presented in the linked article.

What I'm open to is people explaining why European elites would self-destruct in an act of unparalleled altruism. No-one's biting, and your own contribution really just announces your intention to avoid meaningful discussion. I'm surprised you bothered posting at all.

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

...your own contribution really just announces your intention to avoid meaningful discussion.

To be fair, your own repetition of "elites" pretty much precluded meaningful discussion from the get-go.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

To be fair, your own repetition of "elites" pretty much precluded meaningful discussion from the get-go.

I'm simply drawing on the term used in the linked article. I don't see the term obstructing anmeaningful discussion, if there's a will to have one.

The Corinthian

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, I'd point to the failed Lisbon Strategy as evidence that European elites at least diagnosed (well over a decade ago) that Europe is in decline. Beyond that, as I thought was clear from my post, I'm putting forward an alternative interpretation to that presented in the linked article.

Could you be more vague? How is it evidence? Of what exactly? And how does that lead one to a conclusion of Europe being in decline? You're presenting large chunks of what I presume are your argument in an abridged fashion and presuming that we should accept them.

TBH, I'd agree with oscarBravo, that when you start to hear terms such as 'elites' and 'Europe in decline', it does start to sound like tin-foil hat rhetoric, even before you realize that nothing has been presented to back up any of these apocalyptic claims.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Oh, dear.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Could you be more vague? How is it evidence? Of what exactly? And how does that lead one to a conclusion of Europe being in decline?

If there's no appetite for a discussion, that's grand. But please don't play silly buggers with the topic. If it was really so controversial to talk about European decline, the Lisbon Agenda would never have been attempted.

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, I'd agree with oscarBravo, that when you start to hear terms such as 'elites' and 'Europe in decline', it does start to sound like tin-foil hat rhetoric, even before you realize that nothing has been presented to back up any of these apocalyptic claims.

As I explained already, I've just used the term 'elites' as it is the term used in the article I linked, which is written by the Professor of Politics at UCD. Clearly, you feel he's using tin-foil hat rhetoric. It's simply the term used; what's odd is that people seem so uncomfortable with it.

The Corinthian

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If there's no appetite for a discussion, that's grand. But please don't play silly buggers with the topic. If it was really so controversial to talk about European decline, the Lisbon Agenda would never have been attempted.

I think there's no appetite to discuss something based upon axioms that are unproven. For example, you appear everyone to agree that Europe is in decline and take the discussion from there, yet what happens if people don't agree with this premise? Are you seriously going to complain that no one wants to accept the discussion based upon your axioms?

As I explained already, I've just used the term 'elites' as it is the term used in the article I linked, which is written by the Professor of Politics at UCD. Clearly, you feel he's using tin-foil hat rhetoric. It's simply the term used; what's odd is that people seem so uncomfortable with it.

Actually he referred to national elites not European ones, as you have. Indeed he only referred to "Irish elites" and "elites in other member states"; the term European elites was never mentioned and in reality conveys the notion of some sort of supernational group, which was never meant in the article.

Is there a reason that you've sought to change the implied meaning?

Don't get me wrong, your initial call to discussion was fairly balanced; you were still calling these elites national, for example. Yet, even there, you'd already ascribed to them a far more sinister role than the article did, already beginning your decent into conspiracy theories. As this thread has continued, you've introduced the European decline and the elites have gone from being national to some pan-European cast. None of which had anything to do with the article.

You can understand how other posters might look at this and go "nope, enough crazy in the World without encouraging more"?

micosoft

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Oh, dear.If there's no appetite for a discussion, that's grand. But please don't play silly buggers with the topic. If it was really so controversial to talk about European decline, the Lisbon Agenda would never have been attempted. As I explained already, I've just used the term 'elites' as it is the term used in the article I linked, which is written by the Professor of Politics at UCD. Clearly, you feel he's using tin-foil hat rhetoric. It's simply the term used; what's odd is that people seem so uncomfortable with it.

No. What people are uncomfortable with responding to is posters making a statement of opinion as fact and expecting that the follow-up question should be framed by the acceptance of that initial fact when it is eminently disputable.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are you seriously going to complain that no one wants to accept the discussion based upon your axioms?

I'm not complaining at all, and I'm not suggesting any "axioms". I've actually explained what I'd be interested in exploring. If there's no appetite, why would anyone complain.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually he referred to national elites not European ones, as you have. Indeed he only referred to "Irish elites" and "elites in other member states"; the term European elites was never mentioned and in reality conveys the notion of some sort of supernational group, which was never meant in the article.

Ah, this is an utterly contrived statement. Can I suggest that "European elites" might be what you get when you might want to refer to "Irish elites" and "elites in other member states"?

Utterly contrived comments, serving no purpose other than to distort a perfectly reasonable starting point.

micosoft wrote: »

No. What people are uncomfortable with responding to is posters making a statement of opinion as fact and expecting that the follow-up question should be framed by the acceptance of that initial fact when it is eminently disputable.

Another contrived statement. I haven't at all confused fact with interpretation of fact.

The article I'm referring to suggests a particular interpretation cam be placed on a particular fact; the particular fact being "<...>Irish elites, like elites in other member states, been willing to surrender decision-making capacity and to forgo domestic promotion prospects (even if much brighter prospects beckon for the few at EU level)?"

I'm suggesting a reasonable alternative interpretation can be suggested, that doesn't involve some kind of altruism on behalf of national elites in European member states (if its really necessary to put it that way).

Because, more usually, folk like Professors of Political Science don't accept altruism as an explanation for behaviour by national elites.

Would it make it easier for folk if, instead of using Professor Coakley's chosen term of "elites", we said "big folk" or "big cheeses"? What term are people actually comfortable with?

micosoft

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not complaining at all, and I'm not suggesting any "axioms". I've actually explained what I'd be interested in exploring. If there's no appetite, why would anyone complain.

I simply don't accept being bracketing into accepting your "received wisdom" and being forced to walk an enormous distance back to an objectively neutral point before genuine exploration begins. When you have clearly decided what sight you want to see before you "explore" it defeats the point of exploration. You may as well not leave your abode.

Also, how can a response to your post be "contrived"? In order to be contrived it would need to be planned in advance requiring some foreknowledge of your post or indeed setting it. If anything was contrived it was your first post.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

micosoft wrote: »

I simply don't accept being bracketing into accepting your "received wisdom" and being forced to walk an enormous distance back to an objectively neutral point before genuine exploration begins. When you have clearly decided what sight you want to see before you "explore" it defeats the point of exploration. You may as well not leave your abode.

Beautifully constructed statement, and I particularly admire the use of the word "abode". Unfortunately, it's utterly irrelevant to any discussion that I've initiated.

If there's no appetite to respond to the OP, can anyone explain why people with nothing to contribute to the matter raised feel a need to post on the thread at all?

The Corinthian

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not complaining at all, and I'm not suggesting any "axioms".

You have, I'm afraid. For example, the discussion you wish to have is framed around the axiom or presumption that "Europe is in decline"; which is disputable at best, if not simply a spurious and unsupported claim. To discuss what you wish to discuss necessitates accepting this claim or axiom of yours, and you're unlikely to get much cooperation from many people on that.

Can I suggest that "European elites" might be what you get when you might want to refer to "Irish elites" and "elites in other member states"?

You might suggest that as a purpose for your changing the vocabulary. Whether you're believed is another matter. As things stand, I increasingly am sceptical.

I'm suggesting a reasonable alternative interpretation can be suggested, that doesn't involve some kind of altruism on behalf of national elites in European member states (if its really necessary to put it that way).

I don't follow. Are you suggesting collusion between the national 'elites'? That they are acting in concert and in reality a supernational group?

Because, more usually, folk like Professors of Political Science don't accept altruism as an explanation for behaviour by national elites.

Altruism in political science went out the window in 1532, so I'm not sure I understand what your point it. Even I, a humble member of the hoi polloi, view the entire European debate purely in terms of Realpolitik.

Would it make it easier for folk if, instead of using Professor Coakley's chosen term of "elites", we said "big folk" or "big cheeses"? What term are people actually comfortable with?

I think posters here have been quite clear with you on this. How about "national elites", rather than "European" ones? Using the latter at best gives the false impression and at worst wildly claims that these 'elites' are a coordinated European conspiracy.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

The Corinthian wrote: »

For example, the discussion you wish to have is framed around the axiom or presumption that "Europe is in decline"; which is disputable at best, if not simply a spurious and unsupported claim.

Ah, hang on. There a substantial amount of debate out there on the economic impact of aging on Europe. I've mentioned the Lisbon Agenda to demonstrate that concerns over Europe's decline have been recognised since at least 2000. The current guiding strategy of the EU, Europe 2020, is similarly aimed at attempting to arrest (or at least slow, because no-one is too optimistic about the demographics) that decline. I know the Irish media are pretty bad at giving people the information they need to form view. But this is like saying "Ireland has a lot of debt at the moment", and finding people saying "where's your evidence for that?"

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't follow. Are you suggesting collusion between the national 'elites'? That they are acting in concert and in reality a supernational group?

Can I remind you that the quote from that article in the OP, a Professor of Politics from UCD is observing that national elites are co-operating (which I take it involves acting in concert) in passing decision-making responsibilities over to the EU structures. I'd accept his observing this fact as not controversial. Is it your contention that the EU doesn't exist, and that people in national leadership roles (if you really stumble on the word "elite" for some strange reason) have rejected attempts to agree treaties between what the tin-foil hat brigade (like myself) like to call the Member States of the European Union?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even I, a humble member of the hoi polloi, view the entire European debate purely in terms of Realpolitik.

Which is entirely my point. Is this whole exchange based on some misunderstanding? My precise point in the OP is exactly that. Prof Coakley is suggesting national elites are co-operating in their own demise.

The Corinthian

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, hang on. There a substantial amount of debate out there on the economic impact of aging on Europe.

And the keyword there is debate. What you've offered is discussion based upon the premise that this debate has been settled. It hasn't.

Can I remind you that the quote from that article in the OP, a Professor of Politics from UCD is observing that national elites are co-operating (which I take it involves acting in concert) in passing decision-making responsibilities over to the EU structures.

Cooperation does not an organized conspiracy make, and the moment you start talking about 'European elites', as if they are a single entity, you imply exactly that.

Which is entirely my point.

It's not so. Your premise is that it is these 'European elites' that are practising Realpolitik, when in reality we all are. Even the average voter, understanding that we're better in than out or in some cases having more faith in foreign politicians than our own, will act accordingly out of self interest.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

The Corinthian wrote: »

And the keyword there is debate. What you've offered is discussion based upon the premise that this debate has been settled. It hasn't.

? How did I end up on this side of the mirror, said Alice. I'm not aware of anyone attempting to deny the fact of European demographics, or their economic and social impact. The debate is over what to do about it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Cooperation does not an organized conspiracy make, and the moment you start talking about 'European elites', as if they are a single entity, you imply exactly that.

Yeah, is that old game of introducing a term and then refuting yourself. You introduced the term 'conspiracy', which I take it gives you an even bigger rash than the word 'elite'. I refer you back to the quote in the OP, because that's what I'm talking about.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Your premise is that it is these 'European elites' that are practising Realpolitik, when in reality we all are.

Where did I suggest that the elites referred to by Professor Coakley are unique in following their self interest? The whole point of the OP is to question his statement that these elites are agreeing to their own dissolution, motivated by some high moral goal.

The Corinthian

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not aware of anyone attempting to deny the fact of European demographics, or their economic and social impact. The debate is over what to do about it.

Which debate is this? I ask because somehow these demographics are what you're using to somehow prove your earlier claim that "Europe is on the decline". Except they don't.

Whether intentional or not, there appears to be a fair bit of manipulation taking place in what you're presenting. You claim that "Europe is on the decline" based on evidence that does not actually demonstrate this. You claim there's a "European elite" when in reality they're more accurately national elites. And then when people refuse to debate something based upon dubious or outright falsehoods, you complain "there's no appetite for a discussion", as if you have some sort of moral high ground.

Even now, your responses do little more than dismiss and feign innocence. You denied you were creating false axioms to the discussion you wish to promote, to which I pointed out what these were and how you were creating them and you've chosen to ignore what I said, instead just coming out with more dismissals.

TBH, I don't think there's much point discussing this further. You're going to continue to avoid any points made, instead responding to them in the form of a dismissal. Someone else can hop on this merry-go-round of yours.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

The Corinthian wrote: »

Which debate is this?

The one that the EU responded to by adopting the Lisbon Agenda, and which it is currently trying to respond to under the Europe 2020 strategy.

Seriously, it's like you are asking for corroboration that Ireland is carrying a lot of debt at the moment.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're going to continue to avoid any points made, instead responding to them in the form of a dismissal.

I've very clearly stated what's wrong with the 'points' you've made.

View

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Moderately interesting article in the IT, which I think poses an interesting question that I'd like to take in a different direction to the author.I'd suggest the reason that national elites support the EU is because they see it as supporting, rather than challenging, their position. The folk who stand to lose out of the EU are the broader domestic populations. Also, EU decision making structures are quite good at closing out and excluding domestic populations, and effectively just broker agreements between national elites.

There is no evidence to back your suggestions. Your case appears to start with the usual "the EU is the problem" conclusion and then - hey, presto - here are some assumptions to lead us to that conclusion.

The Corinthian

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The one that the EU responded to by adopting the Lisbon Agenda, and which it is currently trying to respond to under the Europe 2020 strategy.

And from this you were able to conclude that "Europe is on the decline"? That is what I've been asking you, to justify such a claim; so either you're changing the goalposts or simply bluffing.

Seriously, it's like you are asking for corroboration that Ireland is carrying a lot of debt at the moment.

Do try to address points rather than dismissing them.

I've very clearly stated what's wrong with the 'points' you've made.

Where did you address my challenge to your claim that "Europe is on the decline"? Better still that the "European elites" managed to deduce this "well over a decade ago"?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

View wrote: »

There is no evidence to back your suggestions. Your case appears to start with the usual "the EU is the problem" conclusion and then - hey, presto - here are some assumptions to lead us to that conclusion.

Not really - the starting point is the same point that The Corinthian expressed when he stated that

The Corinthian wrote: »

Altruism in political science went out the window in 1532

That's my opening position, sparked by the article linked in the OP.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where did you address my challenge to your claim that "Europe is on the decline"? Better still that the "European elites" managed to deduce this "well over a decade ago"?

Corroboration is hardly hard to find. Let's start with the tinfoil hat brigade who drafted the Kok report for the European Commission, which was a mid term assessment of the Lisbon Agenda. Many the happy night I've spent, looking for UFOs with Wim Kok

http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/fp6-evidence-base/evaluation_studies_and_reports/evaluation_studies_and_reports_2004/the_lisbon_strategy_for_growth_and_employment__report_from_the_high_level_group.pdf

[FONT=Arial]<...>The Lisbon strategy is even more urgent today as the growth gap with North America and Asia has widened, while Europe must meet the combined challenges of low population growth and ageing. Time is running out and there can be no room for complacency. Better implementation is needed now to make up for lost time.

<...>In March 2000 the then 15 EU leaders agreed at the Lisbon Spring Council that the EU should commit to raising the rate of growth and employment to underpin social cohesion and environmental sustainability. The US economy, building on the emergence of the so-called ‘new’ knowledge economy and its leadership in information and communication technologies (ICTs), had begun to outperform all but the very best of the individual European economies. Europe, if it wished to protect its particular social model and continue to offer its citizens opportunity, jobs and quality of life, had to act with determination — particularly in the context of the mounting economic challenge from Asia and the slowdown of European population growth. The EU set itself ‘a strategic goal for the next decade: to become the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and respect for the environment’.
[/FONT]

Unfortunately, it didn't hold well for them. Lisbon didn't manage to deliver the transformation of the European economy into the centre for world innovation. Enter the Europe 2020 Strategy. Let's here how some of the challenges it seeks to address were described by that well-known pot-smoking hippy, José Manuel Durão Barroso

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-847_en.htm

[url][/url]


International investors are now finding their way to Europe but business research and development expenditure in the EU is far below that of our main competitors. The crisis has also taken its toll with a decrease in public spending on R&D in 2011.

Europe is lagging behind, in particular in fast-growing markets and high tech. If no action is taken, the EU may miss out again on fast growing markets linked to the technologies which tackle societal challenges.

But enough of what European elites might say. (I'd assume if there is a European elite, you'd be willing to include José as a member of it. ) How does Europe 2020, the people's strategy, describe the challenge that it's trying to address

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/news/documents/pdf/20100303_1_en.pdf

　
Europe's average growth rate has been structurally lower than that of our main economic partners, largely due to a productivity gap that has widened over the last decade. Much of this is due to differences in business structures combined with lower levels of investment in R&D and innovation, insufficient use of information and communications technologies, reluctance in some parts of our societies to embrace innovation, barriers to market access and a less dynamic business environment.

In spite of progress, Europe's employment rates – at 69% on average for those aged 20-64 – are still significantly lower than in other parts of the world. Only 63% of women are in work compared to 76% of men. Only 46% of older workers (55-64) are employed compared to over 62% in the US and Japan. Moreover, on average Europeans work 10% fewer hours than their US or Japanese counterparts.

Demographic ageing is accelerating. As the baby-boom generation retires, the EU's active population will start to shrink as from 2013/2014. The number of people aged over 60 is now increasing twice as fast as it did before 2007 – by about two million every year compared to one million previously. The combination of a smaller working population and a higher share of retired people will place additional strains on our welfare systems.

Incidently, you'll notice that the period of lagging growth referred to in Europe 2020 is (pretty much) the period covered by the Lisbon Agenda.

Now, is that enough material to confirm that framing a discussion within the context of European economic decline is pretty mundane.

The Corinthian

Sorry, but where does any of that suggest that "Europe is on the decline" and that the "European elites" managed to deduce this "well over a decade ago" as was asked?

Do you have anything to back up your claims, or may we conclude they were fallacious all along?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, but where does any of that suggest that "Europe is on the decline" and that the "European elites" managed to deduce this "well over a decade ago" as was asked

What?

Look, if you think the Lisbon Agenda fell from the sky and if, for some reason, you don't want to accept the Kok Report's description of its background, I can't help you. You've passed into a dark place where language ceases to have meaning.

The Corinthian

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Look, if you think the Lisbon Agenda fell from the sky and if, for some reason, you don't want to accept the Kok Report's description of its background, I can't help you. You've passed into a dark place where language ceases to have meaning.

Please spare me the BS, the reason you can't help me is that nothing you've presented actually supports the claims you've made and now you're trying to squirm out of it using thinly veiled ad hominems.

Again, where does any of what you've just posted suggest that "Europe is on the decline" and that the "European elites" managed to deduce this "well over a decade ago" as was asked?

Or maybe it's just me, can anyone else point to it? Seriously, anyone?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again, where does any of what you've just posted suggest that "Europe is on the decline" and that the "European elites" managed to deduce this "well over a decade ago" as was asked

Interpreters, please.

Europe's average growth rate has been structurally lower than that of our main economic partners, largely due to a productivity gap that has widened over the last decade.

In March 2000 the then 15 EU leaders agreed at the Lisbon Spring Council that the EU should commit to raising the rate of growth and employment to underpin social cohesion and environmental sustainability. The US economy,<...>had begun to outperform all but the very best of the individual European economies. Europe, if it wished to protect its particular social model and continue to offer its citizens opportunity, jobs and quality of life, had to act with determination — particularly in the context of the mounting economic challenge from Asia and the slowdown of European population growth.

The Corinthian

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Interpreters, please.

Again, spare us the BS; you clearly stated one thing and now you're pretending you meant another thing and using an ad hominem to attempt to distract from that.

To begin with "Europe's average growth rate has been structurally lower than that of our main economic partners" is a far cry from your claim that "Europe is on the decline".

And let's not forget your other claim that the "European elites" managed to deduce this "well over a decade ago" (pre-crisis too). You don't appear to have even tried to explain that one.

You're caught mate.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

The Corinthian wrote: »

To begin with "Europe's average growth rate has been structurally lower than that of our main economic partners" is a far cry from your claim that "Europe is on the decline".

Grand, I'll tell José that he need not worry. For some reason, he seems to think that Europe's shrinking share of world GDP will have implications for quite a lot of things.()

The Corinthian wrote: »

And let's not forget your other claim that the "European elites" managed to deduce this "well over a decade ago" (pre-crisis too). You don't appear to have even tried to explain that one.

Well, I have by supplying the Kok Report's background to the adoption of the Lisbon Agenda. The Lisbon Agenda was framed when Europe wasn't especially in trouble yet, but the fact that other regions had higher rates of innovative investment, and the predictable aging of the European population, made it clear where things were headed.

The Lisbon Agenda was a strategy aimed at regaining Europe's global position. That's just what it was, and I've provided enough links to documents to make that clear.

The Corinthian

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand, I'll tell José that he need not worry.

More out of hand dismissal, I see.

The Lisbon Agenda was a strategy aimed at regaining Europe's global position. That's just what it was, and I've provided enough links to documents to make that clear.

Regaining global position does not imply something as extreme as a decline. Just because you're not number one, doesn't mean you're screwed.

Nothing you've presented supports your over-the-top 'interpretation' - as View pointed out all you've done is present what few facts you've come out with with the usual "the EU is the problem" conclusion, so as to support your own POV, claimed it as 'fact' and then expect people to accept this and discuss accordingly.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

The Corinthian wrote: »

Regaining global position does not imply something as extreme as a decline.

Well, yes, it does. The world isn't static.

The problem that José (and similar folk) appreciate is the same issue that Tom Hagan points out to the Godfather

If we don't get into it, somebody else will, maybe one of the Five Families, maybe all of them. And with the money they earn they'll be able to buy more police and political power. Then they come after us. Right now we have the unions and we have the gambling and those are the best things to have. But narcotics is a thing of the future. If we don't get a piece of that action we risk everything we have. Not now, but ten years from now.

That's exactly what José is saying - only, in fairness, he hasn't suggested development of a narcotics trade as a policy objective for the EU.

Yes, a fall in relative position is a decline. Structurally lower growth rates is a decline. Yes.

View

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Not really - the starting point is ]

Your starting point was fairly clear, namely:

GCU Flexible wrote: »

I'd suggest the reason that national elites support the EU is because they see it as supporting, rather than challenging, their position.

There is no evidence to back that suggestion up.

GCU Flexible wrote: »

The folk who stand to lose out of the EU are the broader domestic populations.

Again, no evidence to back that suggestion up as it clear suggests that the "broader domestic populations" - unlike you - are too stupid to recognise that they have lost out or are/could be about to lose out.

That is in effect an argument against democracy since it rests on the idea that the electorate can't handle democracy.

GCU Flexible wrote: »

Also, EU decision making structures are quite good at closing out and excluding domestic populations, and effectively just broker agreements between national elites.

Again, there isn't any evidence to back this up as every EU Treaty in recent times has moved towards strengthening the role of the European Parliament which of course the voters directly elect. Such strengthening is utterly inconsistent with the idea of there being an intention to exclude the domestic population.

If such an intention existed the governments could keep the EU entirely inter-governmental and there would be little risk of public complaint about this (since there is none whatsoever about the lack of elections to bodies such as the UN, NATO, the WTO).

As such, your suggestions seem to be made on the basis that you have decided your conclusions first and are retro-fitting your argument to suit them.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

View wrote: »

There is no evidence to back that suggestion up.

But, sure, why would anyone contest the point? As The Corinthian said

Altruism in political science went out the window in 1532

As I said, I'm open to is people explaining why European elites would self-destruct in an act of unparalleled altruism.

View wrote: »

That is in effect an argument against democracy since it rests on the idea that the electorate can't handle democracy.

Not at all, really. Plus, do bear in mind that Ireland is pretty unique in requiring a referendum on pretty much any EU treaty. Bear in mind also that the reason we need to have a referendum pretty much every time is because of a citizen winning a Constitutional challenge in the Courts, and not because anyone in Government wanted us to have a choice.

View wrote: »

If such an intention existed the governments could keep the EU entirely inter-governmental and there would be little risk of public complaint about this (since there is none whatsoever about the lack of elections to bodies such as the UN, NATO, the WTO).

Two points. Firstly, governments are not omnipotent. They have to make some moves towards trying to fill the democratic void in the EU. Secondly, bear in mind that the EU is different in nature to the UN and NATO (although the WTO is a funny beast, but lets not get bogged down unnecessarily.) The EU isn't a federation of States. But its law making processing are binding on Member States; when it makes a law in the form of a Regulation it even has direct effect in Member States.

That raises a need for the legitimacy of authority to be established. If you're going to tell people to stop cutting turf (which, can I say, I think is probably a good thing to tell them), you need to be able to demonstrate that you have the authority to do so. That's why there's an issue around this democratic void. People don't really have an engagement with the European Parliament. That's why you rarely see any politician with ambition looking to become an MEP.

Boskowski

You say the EU is good at favouring elites and closing out the broader public from meaningful decision making. I say that's fully in line with whats happening at domestic levels anyway. Where is the news?
Democracy is not what people think it is. Its definitely not about making decisions that favour the people. Its about making decisions that favour the elites and then manipulating the people into acceptance.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Boskowski wrote: »

You say the EU is good at favouring elites and closing out the broader public from meaningful decision making. I say that's fully in line with whats happening at domestic levels anyway. Where is the news?

Ah, yeah, in the broad sense that's the kind of thing on my mind. The 'news' is only the line in that article I linked in the OP. I felt that sentence, to the effect that domestic elites were altruistically consenting to their own disempowerment, was questionable.