Abandon 'utopian dreams', says EU head

donaghs

Is this a first from a leading EU figure? "The condition is to depart from utopian dreams and move on to practical activities..."

"Forcing lyrical and in fact naïve Euro-enthusiastic visions of total integration, regardless of the obvious good will of their proponents, is not a suitable answer to our problems. "

While he links problems to the rise of the far-right, it does seem to be an open acknowledgement by a senior EU figure of the gap between the desires of the European political establishment, and ordinary voters in their respective countries. Nothing may come of this, but is this a first?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36429331
The actual speech is here: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/06/01-tusk-speech-european-business-summit/

screamer

I am sure he's not the first to think this way but may be the first as part of the establishment to actually say it.
TBH the EU was established as a trade instrument and should have stayed that way. It has far over reached it's remit.

oscarBravo

screamer wrote: »

TBH the EU was established as a trade instrument and should have stayed that way.

Jesus, that tired canard just won't die.

Go and read the Treaty of Rome. You don't need to read much of it; the second paragraph will do. Hell, I'll quote it for you:

DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,

It has never been, nor has it ever been intended to be, merely a "trade instrument".

Suryavarman

oscarBravo wrote: »

Jesus, that tired canard just won't die.

Go and read the Treaty of Rome. You don't need to read much of it; the second paragraph will do. Hell, I'll quote it for you:



It has never been, nor has it ever been intended to be, merely a "trade instrument".

Wasn't it primarily developed to prevent the outbreak of another war?

donaghs

oscarBravo wrote: »

Jesus, that tired canard just won't die.

Go and read the Treaty of Rome. You don't need to read much of it; the second paragraph will do. Hell, I'll quote it for you:

"determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe". In this way, the member ...

It has never been, nor has it ever been intended to be, merely a "trade instrument".

Did the treaty provide any definition of "ever closer union"? Not really, sounds like a deliberate fudge, given all the other specifics contained within. Nonetheless the ECSC and EEC were initially about trade, even if some founders had other "means to an end" long term objectives

Suryavarman wrote: »

Wasn't it primarily developed to prevent the outbreak of another war?

Only partly.

Scofflaw

Suryavarman wrote: »

Wasn't it primarily developed to prevent the outbreak of another war?

Yes, that was and is exactly the point of it - a common market between the countries of Europe was just an instrument to that end, as is the common currency. They're not ends in themselves, which is a part of why they're not always as efficient as they could be. It's why the common market started as a common market in coal and steel, because they were seen as the indispensable sinews of war (none of the member countries having much in the way of oil at that stage).

And people who say that war between European countries is unthinkable simply aren't thinking.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

There's nothing to controversial in what was said. The EU has reached the limit of what is possible for at least a generation, and is needs to pause. Vastly more work needs to be done on building a common European identity before people will be willing to countenance strengthening the EU Parliament, fiscal transfers, significant pooling of sovereignty or genuine common foreign policy and military. If anything EU policies on migration and the reaction to them are weakening any sense of a common European identity.

The EU and its institutions are seen as increasingly incompetent, slow and ineffective given its responses to relatively minor problems. That's not good when it was already unpopular. Germany is increasingly confident about expressing its own national interests and it is not going to keep apologising and paying money for the next 50 years like it did for most of the last 50. When push comes to shove, a German in Frankfurt does not see an instinctive common purpose with a Greek in Athens in the same way that they might with a German in Hanover. Both of them see their political leadership being in Berlin or Athens respectively, not Brussels. Its not a good showing for the 'soft power' of the EU if it cant even legitimise the concept of a common European political identity amongst its own citizens. Without that there is no basis for 'ever-closer union' unless it is imposed, which is not possible.

National governments are at about the very limit of the powers they are comfortable transferring to the EU, and in some cases beyond. A significant crisis might lead to the EU drawing closer together, but given the Euro project almost collapsed a few years ago under relatively little strain, and the free movement was suspended under the migrant crisis, its more likely the EU will collapse under the weight of a significant crisis as members seek their own individual, national solutions which are at the very least competent. Very similar to what happened to the Roman Empire in the west.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

There's nothing to controversial in what was said. The EU has reached the limit of what is possible for at least a generation, and is needs to pause. Vastly more work needs to be done on building a common European identity before people will be willing to countenance strengthening the EU Parliament, fiscal transfers, significant pooling of sovereignty or genuine common foreign policy and military. If anything EU policies on migration and the reaction to them are weakening any sense of a common European identity.

The EU and its institutions are seen as increasingly incompetent, slow and ineffective given its responses to relatively minor problems. That's not good when it was already unpopular. Germany is increasingly confident about expressing its own national interests and it is not going to keep apologising and paying money for the next 50 years like it did for most of the last 50. When push comes to shove, a German in Frankfurt does not see an instinctive common purpose with a Greek in Athens in the same way that they might with a German in Hanover. Both of them see their political leadership being in Berlin or Athens respectively, not Brussels. Its not a good showing for the 'soft power' of the EU if it cant even legitimise the concept of a common European political identity amongst its own citizens. Without that there is no basis for 'ever-closer union' unless it is imposed, which is not possible.

National governments are at about the very limit of the powers they are comfortable transferring to the EU, and in some cases beyond. A significant crisis might lead to the EU drawing closer together, but given the Euro project almost collapsed a few years ago under relatively little strain, and the free movement was suspended under the migrant crisis, its more likely the EU will collapse under the weight of a significant crisis as members seek their own individual, national solutions which are at the very least competent. Very similar to what happened to the Roman Empire in the west.

Agreed. While I suppose that if you're an ardent federalist, and see federalism as logical and desirable, you would obviously want to see it in your lifetime, and therefore to hurry forward, the EU has been pushed forward too fast in recent years.

To be fair, that's not entirely intentional. I think the idea was a pause after Lisbon, but the financial crisis and the migrant crisis have intervened and forced the pace. It's really up to the institutional EU to try to resist any calls for deeper integration for the sake of what has already been achieved, and for that reason it's good to see one of the five presidents making such a call.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gallag

It's all a nonsense, amazingly the "pro federalists for peace" side conveniently ignore the simple bloody obvious fact that peace in Europe has never been threatened by countries simply maintaining good relations and trade agreements, peace in Europe has only ever been diminished by nutcases that push for a closer, single Europe.

I'll be voting out!

seamus

gallag wrote: »

It's all a nonsense, amazingly the "pro federalists for peace" side conveniently ignore the simple bloody obvious fact that peace in Europe has never been threatened by countries simply maintaining good relations and trade agreements, peace in Europe has only ever been diminished by nutcases that push for a closer, single Europe.

I'll be voting out!

is this the "Napoleon and Hitler already tried to unite Europe" nonsense in a different wrapper?

Good relations can go sour very quickly, trade agreements revoked with the stroke of a pen. Legally intertwining countries into a community creates greater self interest not only in peace with other countries in the community but peace within the community too.
Countries like the UK can't put their fingers in their ears when stability is threatened and hope it goes away. Like half of the now-EU did at the start of WWII.

Europe has never seen a longer period of peace. To claim that this happened incidentally alongside the formation of the EEC/EC/EU is straight up dishonesty.

Speedwell

"Abandon Utopian dreams". Yeah, because f*** an equitable, prosperous, safe, decent society where people don't have to live in desperate misery, amirite?

ancapailldorcha

Speedwell wrote: »

"Abandon Utopian dreams". Yeah, because f*** an equitable, prosperous, safe, decent society where people don't have to live in desperate misery, amirite?

This is a forum for serious discussion. Please read the charter before posting again.

gallag

seamus wrote: »

is this the "Napoleon and Hitler already tried to unite Europe" nonsense in a different wrapper?

Good relations can go sour very quickly, trade agreements revoked with the stroke of a pen. Legally intertwining countries into a community creates greater self interest not only in peace with other countries in the community but peace within the community too.
Countries like the UK can't put their fingers in their ears when stability is threatened and hope it goes away. Like half of the now-EU did at the start of WWII.

Europe has never seen a longer period of peace. To claim that this happened incidentally alongside the formation of the EEC/EC/EU is straight up dishonesty.

You can be dismissive of the fact all you want, yes you can stick you fingers in your ears and shout "Godwin" but the simple fact is that every time someone has tried to "unite" Europe has lead to war, I just think it's funny how people today with the benefit of hindsight still hold on to the mantra "united Europe for peace"

seamus

gallag wrote: »

You can be dismissive of the fact all you want, yes you can stick you fingers in your ears and shout "Godwin" but the simple fact is that every time someone has tried to "unite" Europe has lead to war, I just think it's funny how people today with the benefit of hindsight still hold on to the mantra "united Europe for peace"

That's called begging the question.

Every time previous to the EU people have attempted to unify Europe through war. The unification attempt didn't cause war, war was the means to the end not a consequence of it.

You also keep overlooking the fact that Europe has never been more peaceful than it is now. Evidence that even basic steps towards a peaceful unification have the desired effect, no?

Every time Europe has been divided has led to war. That's what you want?

Sand

gallag wrote: »

You can be dismissive of the fact all you want, yes you can stick you fingers in your ears and shout "Godwin" but the simple fact is that every time someone has tried to "unite" Europe has lead to war, I just think it's funny how people today with the benefit of hindsight still hold on to the mantra "united Europe for peace"

Neither Napoleon nor Hitler ever had the intention of 'uniting Europe'. They were just temporarily very successful at defeating their enemies.

People make the argument for a united Europe for the same reason no one thinks its a good idea to divide up London into 28 different sovereign states, with local armies, foreign policies and passport controls. I'd have though someone strongly in favour of a United Kingdom would see the argument for a united Europe.

Charles Babbage

The EU has often gone for symbolic integration which exceeded the arrangements it put in place to manage this. So the Euro was established without a proper system being in place and the EU has been threatened by the chaos that ensued when a problem arose and policy was made on the hoof. Likewise some of the issues being discussed in the Brexit, payment of Children's Allowance and so on reflects a lack of attention to detail and this lack of attention to detail exists in many situations.

BlitzKrieg

gallag wrote: »

It's all a nonsense, amazingly the "pro federalists for peace" side conveniently ignore the simple bloody obvious fact that peace in Europe has never been threatened by countries simply maintaining good relations and trade agreements, peace in Europe has only ever been diminished by nutcases that push for a closer, single Europe.

I'll be voting out!

we'll ignore the first world war then shall we?

Scofflaw

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The EU has often gone for symbolic integration which exceeded the arrangements it put in place to manage this. So the Euro was established without a proper system being in place and the EU has been threatened by the chaos that ensued when a problem arose and policy was made on the hoof. Likewise some of the issues being discussed in the Brexit, payment of Children's Allowance and so on reflects a lack of attention to detail and this lack of attention to detail exists in many situations.

Which follows from the fact that the EU is primarily a political project aimed at binding European countries together so they don't go to war, not an economic club aiming primarily for purely material advantages - which is also why the EU is "expansionist", rather than, as an economic club, sticking to the closest matched economies and telling everyone else to p off.

It was put in place by a generation that had lived through two devastating European wars, and perhaps had a slightly better handle on how likely European countries were to fight each other than those of us who have only lived in the resulting long peace.

cordially,
Scofflaw

donaghs

seamus wrote: »

Europe has never seen a longer period of peace. To claim that this happened incidentally alongside the formation of the EEC/EC/EU is straight up dishonesty.

The threat from the Soviet bloc, and resulting detente, also had something to do with this.

Either way, the contribution of the EC to peace in Europe in previous decades via trade and cooperation doesn't necessarily mean that people support the general drift of the European project in more recent decades.