The European Union

[HumbleTangerine]

So in approximately one month the elections will be held to select the politicians we deem most able to represent our respective countries in the EU parliament. I was wondering how other European members on the forum feel about the organization in general and how they plan to implement their voting rights?

Personally, I see some benefits with the organization. For one, it provides a relatively wide platform where important, global concerns can be addressed; environmental questions, for example. It opens up some degree of co-operation between its member countries and the idea of free transportation of people, products and services makes the process of trade significantly easier.

In general, however, I am greatly opposed to EU as a whole, for a number of reasons:

1. It is fundamentally undemocratic

Practically speaking, the election I spoke about earlier is the only chance us EU citizens have of affecting the organization and raising our voices. The "president" of the orgsanization, Herman Van Rompuy, has not been elected by us citizens.

2. Many decisions are made in complete secrecy

Several documents are classified and unavailable to the public, just like many meetings are held in complete privacy. This can often be worrisome. For example, the EU are currently negotiating some sort of trade agreement with the U.S, but all relevant documents are classified and unavailable, leaving us uncertain as to what is really going on.

3. The organization is too bureaucratic for its own good.

4. Lobbyists and companies have too much control over decisions.

Corporate Europe Observatory reached the conslusion that in 93% of all cases, corporal lobbyists are contacted during EU meetings and decision-making processes.

5. The organization violates national sovereignty

Different European unions have different opinions, values and agendas. That some countries should be expected to adhere willingly to EU decisions that change national policies is a poor idea, unless you trust the ability of 28 relatively different member states to make good decisions in unison.

With all these points in mind, I will personally be electing a representative who opposes the existence of the EU, whilst still maintaining a practical approach to work with the situation as well as possible. I've gone through my different options and will be voting for a woman from the far left political spectrum, a political party I usually don't sympethize with. The right-wing parties have been known to sometimes abandon national policies in their EU positions and vote against general agreements to promote abortions, LGBT rights and sexual education. Furthermore, all the parties on the right side of the political spectrum are pro-EU and in many cases pro-NATO. I also wish to promote a feminist and fiercely anti-xenophobic candidate in an era where racism and anti-choice sentiments are growing. Furthermore, the individual in question seems very competent based on background and interviews.

How will you place your vote?

[Tulloni]

Comment dit-on en français? Je deteste le EU avec tout de mon coeur! Il y a un concentration de pouvoir dans Bruxelles. Si ça continue, nous serons parler français et Napoleon à gagné contre Espagne et Angleterre 200 plus ans aprés le mort!

Sorry about that! But seriously, the centralisation of power is a major problem in the EU which is reason enough to oppose it. It is quite scary how many laws and regulations made in Brussels have an impact all across Europe. And yes the EU can't be held to account so easily due to so many unelectable and undemocratic elements. The accounts of the EU have yet to be signed off by the auditors making it appear as if the EU is a financial singularity which it probably is (money goes in and just disappears).

So yes I will be voting for an anti-EU candidate. Hopefully there will be one in my area. I would rather avoid voting for the right-wing UKIP party though. But I'll find another candidate to vote for. There's far too much corruption in the EU and even member states which show loyalty to the EU get treated like dirt by the powers that be in Brussels. The UK has shown a lot of loyalty to the EU and is still been snubbed and ridiculed by too many EU leaders for far too long - almost like some mistress or housewife being messed around by an emotionally abusive husband/lover. It's quite embarrassing really and has to end soon.

[EvenOlderButWiser]

As a company executive who travels extensively inside and outside of Europe I can see the tangible benefits of being in Europe (free market, unhindered travel, right to work in any EU country) but I can also see the challenges (unequal taxation, laws, CAP and unequal financial status)

Back in 1972 the European free market it was a great idea. Today it's passed it's sell buy date. Too bureaucratic, too big, too many imposed laws, too much nepotism. Far too expensive to run, especially for the stronger northern economies.

But I'll still vote for a pro Europe candidate because the alternative would be much worse for a lot of countries.

OBW
X

[HumbleTangerine]

But I'll still vote for a pro Europe candidate because the alternative would be much worse for a lot of countries.

How do you mean the alternative would be much worse for a lot of countries? Switzerland is not a member of the EU and they seem to be doing just fine, like Norway. In fact, Norway has been able to negotiate arrangements similar to the free movement agreement without getting a membership.

Currently, the EU seems to be negotiating a new form of trade agreement with the U.S which (from the looks of it) would make it easier for companies to press legal action towards governments that somehow hinder their profit in some way. Swedish company Vattenfall has sued the German government for massive fees because it actively began to plan the shut-down of several nuclear reactors. This agreement would seemingly (I say seemingly because the matter seems somewhat unclear at the moment) make it significantly easier for companies in the future to protect their own interests by suing governments for gigantic sums which could have harrowing consequences for several obvious reasons.

[EvenOlderButWiser]

Switzerland is a high net worth country with advanced infrastructure not to mention a robust banking system, so maybe not a fair country to use as a comparison.

The Southern European countries - the ones with significantly lower income per capita, and the newer (ex Eastern Block) countries would descend into chaos and anarchy without the financial muscle of the EU to prop up their basket case economies.

The proposed trade agreement is just that. Trade, with no arbitrary taxation applied to products in order to protect your own manufacturing base. (I.e. Steel imported from the US taxed at (say) 12% if purchased in Sweden, versus steel manufactured in Sweden that's taxed at 8%, so naturally anyone wanting steel in Sweden buys Swedish steel)

You have always been able to take legal action in other countries assuming there is of course a basis for doing so. The proposed trade agreement doesn't change that as far as I know. (?)

ObW
X

[Bowyn Aerrow]

Sounds close to being the USA.

Fundamentally Undemocratic (the US is a Republic, not a democracy).
Many decisions are made in secrecy.
Too bureaucratic for its own good.
Lobbyists and companies have too much control over decisions.
The Federal Government violates States sovereignty.

While the EU is not as fully integrated as the Federal US government, I see a lot of similar patterns between the two. Sometimes I think the EU has used the USA as a blueprint of 'organization' and politics.

But then the EU's ultimate goal is to form a sort of United States of Europe. Which has long been the goal of many for the past hundred years or so - if not longer.

Each step thus taken has been to reduce nations into states. Slowly taking sovereignty of nations and reduce them to 'statehood' status.

Unfortunately instead of using the USA as a warning, to steer clear from the mistakes, the EU appears to be using it as a blue print. That won't end well.

[Harry]

Personally I hate it.

My countries membership is illegal, considering we never voted on it.

We have over 2M people out of work and the country is being swamped by Eastern Europeans. Only countries like UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria etc should be allowed membership.

Not the likes of Poland and Romania, which are much poorer and don't balance the economic scales.

[HumbleTangerine]

Switzerland is a high net worth country with advanced infrastructure not to mention a robust banking system, so maybe not a fair country to use as a comparison.

The Southern European countries - the ones with significantly lower income per capita, and the newer (ex Eastern Block) countries would descend into chaos and anarchy without the financial muscle of the EU to prop up their basket case economies.

The proposed trade agreement is just that. Trade, with no arbitrary taxation applied to products in order to protect your own manufacturing base. (I.e. Steel imported from the US taxed at (say) 12% if purchased in Sweden, versus steel manufactured in Sweden that's taxed at 8%, so naturally anyone wanting steel in Sweden buys Swedish steel)

You have always been able to take legal action in other countries assuming there is of course a basis for doing so. The proposed trade agreement doesn't change that as far as I know. (?)

ObW
X

I see your points.

The trade agreement is supposedly meant to make the process easier. A process that allows multi-billion international companies to take money that might otherwise be spent in favour of the citizens sounds dangerous in my opinion. However, since many aspects of the EU operate in almost complete secrecy (which in itself is unsettling) I don't really know enough about it yet.

Also, whilst membership provides several benefits (and cons of course) for some of the less rich countries, I think it's a pretty insane hyperbole to say chaos and anarchy would ensue without the EU.

[Cuddly]

I despise politics as a whole.. It's a necesity for our way of life, sure, but Danish politicians have been slinging mud at each other for my entire life. How could I ever take it seriously? Additionally it's slow as hell. The general routine in Denmark is that the social democrats "rule" the country for their 3 years period, then the election comes and the liberals then "rule" the country for 3 years. This cycle repeats and nothing ever gets done, because it takes atleast 3 years for them to get anything done and by the time they're almost done the election is up and their respective party is no longer in charge and everything that was done during the last 3 years is forgotten. Promises are ignored. Lies are told. Mud is slung.
Stop the world. I wanna get off.

[Bowyn Aerrow]

Personally I hate it.

My countries membership is illegal, considering we never voted on it.

We have over 2M people out of work and the country is being swamped by Eastern Europeans. Only countries like UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria etc should be allowed membership.

Not the likes of Poland and Romania, which are much poorer and don't balance the economic scales.

The UK's immigrant policy is fixable inside of itself and is largely due to them not watching and seeing how immigration worked out in the new world nations. While the US policy ain't perfect, we did spend the last oh 300 years figuring out how to make immigration work - it is the backbone of how America not only survived but thrived since its inception.

The UK and most of Europe needs immigration almost as much as the USA. Its my understanding that several of the 'White Only' nations are suffering from negative population growth which has had a negative impact on economy and politics and all sorts of things.

Like it or not, white folk are slowly becoming a minority and are, most likely going to go extinct. not only because there are so few,but now evolution is having a hand and the processes that lead to whites only applies to a few regions in Europe and not as strongly as it was before food was shipped world round.

Perhaps its best considering white people's incredible talent for whipping out aboriginal and native populations to make room for itself.

As for who is and is not a member of the EU - exclusion is not a good policy.

In the USA there are lot of states that are a burden to the more wealthier states. For each tax dollar that California gives to the fed, California only sees 70 cents back. For each Tax dollar Louisiana contributes it sees 2.15 dollars back.

"Fair" Uncertain about fairness, but the redistribution of wealth does make life better for those without than if each state didn't 'share the wealth' in a more or less equal basis.

That sharing of the wealth makes all states in the union stronger, even those who are being stolen from (like California). No its not a perfect system, yes we can debate the 'fairness' of it. However it is a more humane system and works rather well to improve the lot of everyone, and not just a minority of selfish bastards who flat refuse to get along well with others and share.

The problem with the EU is its trying to take old world, long history nations and get them to agree to become mere states.

There is too much history in Europe, ya'll pretty much still hate each other. Even after two world wars fought on your turf you all pretty much barely tolerate each other and once the last vestiges of WWII are plowed under or built over I suspect that another World War is in the offing... unless Europe learns cooperation and becomes a more perfect union.

As the Anti-muslim thread has demonstrated, too many people hate too many other people. As as it lead to war and conflict for our family here, it leads to war and conflict of the human family - all of us no matter where we are on this gods forsaken ball of mud.

This attitude of not wanting to help neighboring nations is why the USA had to go to Kosovo to fix that problem. Interestingly European nations always bitch and complain that the USA is militarily in every pot, but when push comes to shove the European nations flat refuse to help each other out, or their neighbors.

Its why the USA maintains bases in every European nation. Incidentally the USA is not home to many European Nation's military... Ever wonder why that is? It is because you all don't know how to get along. World War I was quickly followed by WWII. Which was followed on the heels by the Cold War and the USA's maintaining a strong military presence in its allies lands appears to have work to stave off World War III.

The USA is also policeman to the world mostly because Europe is loath to take action and actually do the right thing... ya'll always shove the dirty work on US... please stop it, most Americans are sick and tired of being the bad guy - time for Europe to shoulder its load.

The EU is exists as it does primarily due to this underlying lack of cooperation between European Nations. It is an attempt by some pretty smart people who can see the problems and are seeking solutions to improve the lot for all Europeans, not just the rich nations like the UK and France, but all of them.

If You the People of Europe can see your way to actually working it and doing the right things instead of fighting it, you most likely can steer your future into a brighter one.

And while you all are ranting about the negatives of the EU, especially you Brits:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6455879.stm Focuses on a bit of the positives.

other sites on the subject: https://www.google.com/#q=List+of+positi...es&spell=1

No its not a perfect system, no system ran by humans can be perfect, humans flawed, prone to error, thus any system devised by humans will be flawed and prone to error.

However given the alternative (World War Three), I think the EU is a hella lot better and is actually a very sensible way for old world nation to get over themselves and learn a bit of cooperation.

While true the economy tanked this past decade, the reality is that it most likely tanked a lot less as bad as it could had simply because of the economic policies of the EU. And each member nation of the EU has seen an overall improvement of the economy, whether you like to use the Euro or not.

While personally I don't care if the European People decide to use guns to satisfy their blood lust and ancient bigotries and petty hatreds, each time you all decide to duke it out the USA is pulled into the fray and we get to expend huge amounts of resources and human lives to settle your disputes.

Perhaps being a product of the cold war means I can clearly see the need for a strong, unified Europe - not just part of Europe, that ain't unification - but all of it including Eastern Europe.

While its true there is a lot that can be improved upon in the EU, I see it as not only a solution to earlier ills of humanity, I see all of its potentials to strengthen not only the peoples of Europe but every nation on earth.

Anti-eastern European sentiments are wrong, bad, and will not end well. humans have to get over this 'I am better than them because of their origin/skin color/religions/gender/sexual orientation' mind set. We have at least 10 thousand years of history to demonstrate that those attitudes never end well.

And we gays should be a hella lot more tolerant, even of our so called enemies because we are still a persecuted people and know that hatred hurts - first hand knowledge. It will forever puzzle me why it is that LGBT can hate so readily given our history.

Humans are in sore need of cooperation and tolerance if its going to survive the Coming Troubles. Which is touched upon here: http://gayspeak.com/showthread.php?p=433467#post433467

Poverty, homelessness, starvation, wars, blood feuds, flourishing dictatorships, and the ongoing proliferation of nuclear and other super-deadly weapons is an outgrowth of 'hate thy neighbor'...