[Rasczak]

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has unveiled a vision for the future of the EU.

BBC News - EU unveils its vision for the future of monetary union

The vision, which creates a EU treasury, would give the EU powers over national budgets in that it would place limits on the amount of national debt and would allow an EU veto of national budgets (in some circumstances). Collective Eurozone borrowing has also been mooted.

Good or bad? Probably far too early to say. But could this closer integration lead to greater marginalisation of Britain?

[kav]

I suppose my immediate reaction would be "who polices the police?". Ignoring the obvious reaction about how this will erode the decision-making capabilities of individual nations and lead to a monolithic superstate, it raises the question of how well-equipped a super-government will be to manage and regulate the finances of a whole group of nations, given the obvious struggles those nations have to manage themselves.

[karkus30]

Professor Carroll Quigley wrote a book on who ruled the the USA and Britain between 1870 and 1960, called Tragedy And Hope: A History Of The World In Our Time. His publisher MacMillan, was taken over as they first published his book, and the plates and the manuscript were destroyed. But not before a handful of them had been sold. In this book, Professor Quigley wrote -

The power of the Bank Of England and of its governor was admitted by most qualified observers. In January 1924, Reginald McKenna, who had been Chancellor Of The Exchequer in 1915-1916, as Chairman of the Board of The Midland Bank, told its stockholder:"I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money...And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow in their hands the destiny of the people."


Quigley also wrote -

..the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole."

Sounds a bit like the EU. Of course it might just be a real quote at all, who knows, maybe it was just made up to feed the conspiracy theorists, but it does sound a bit similar.

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has unveiled a vision for the future of the EU.

BBC News - EU unveils its vision for the future of monetary union

The vision, which creates a EU treasury, would give the EU powers over national budgets in that it would place limits on the amount of national debt and would allow an EU veto of national budgets (in some circumstances). Collective Eurozone borrowing has also been mooted.

Good or bad? Probably far too early to say. But could this closer integration lead to greater marginalisation of Britain?

If the rules are set according to the current doctrine and enforced as such, it would essentially mean that many left of centre governments (step forward France) essentially cease to have any room to manouvre at all as any increase in deficit could be vetoed by the Germans.

As the plan has to have the support of the Germans- who for many valid reasons aren't keen- I don't think the UK needs to concern itself unduly at the moment.

[Ed Selley]

Well, it seems that it isn't just the UK that has their doubts about closer integration.

[Palladio]

Originally Posted by karkus30

Professor Carroll Quigley wrote a book on who ruled the the USA and Britain between 1870 and 1960, called Tragedy And Hope: A History Of The World In Our Time. His publisher MacMillan, was taken over as they first published his book, and the plates and the manuscript were destroyed. But not before a handful of them had been sold. In this book, Professor Quigley wrote -

The power of the Bank Of England and of its governor was admitted by most qualified observers. In January 1924, Reginald McKenna, who had been Chancellor Of The Exchequer in 1915-1916, as Chairman of the Board of The Midland Bank, told its stockholder:"I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money...And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow in their hands the destiny of the people."

Quigley also wrote -

..the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole."

Sounds a bit like the EU. Of course it might just be a real quote at all, who knows, maybe it was just made up to feed the conspiracy theorists, but it does sound a bit similar.

Strange coincidence that. I've just been reading up about Carroll Quigley and read a few excepts. Certainly seems like a worthwhile read especially considering it was written over 40 years ago. He also wrote 'Angle American Establishment' in 1949 about what he noticed as a very powerful secret propaganda group between the wars that was very influential on British foreign policy at the time. Seems like nothing is new then.......

He was a professor at Georgetown University and was also a mentor to Bill Clinton in his early days.

[Wild Weasel]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has unveiled a vision for the future of the EU.

This is begging for one of those Downfall videos.

could this closer integration lead to greater marginalisation of Britain?

I don't know. Maybe you should join with 16 other households in your street, share budgets, pool your debt and have a common bank account. Yes, even the slackers at numbers 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and the odd couple at number 6. Don't forget to have a bunch of idiots in charge and, no you can't elect or remove them. After all, you don't want to be marginalised in your neighbourhood and what could possibly go wrong?

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Wild Weasel

I don't know. Maybe you should join with 16 other households in your street, share budgets, pool your debt and have a common bank account. Yes, even the slackers at numbers 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and the odd couple at number 6. Don't forget to have a bunch of idiots in charge and, no you can't elect or remove them. After all, you don't want to be marginalised in your neighbourhood and what could possibly go wrong?

Credit where credit is due - that was actually quite funny!

What isn't funny is the idea of Britain sulking on the sidelines whilst key decisions - that will ultimately be critical to our own wealth and wellbeing - are made without us.

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

What isn't funny is the idea of Britain sulking on the sidelines whilst key decisions - that will ultimately be critical to our own wealth and wellbeing - are made without us.

As I pointed out last night- even the countries that are supposed to be signing up are going to struggle with their electorates. I'm not overly concerned about being marginalised while the key players aren't sold on the idea either.

It boils down to asking the populations of certain countries to fund the populations of other countries in order for them to be much less efficient and have facilities available to them long denied the people paying for it. This is not a vote winner.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Ed Selley

As I pointed out last night- even the countries that are supposed to be signing up are going to struggle with their electorates. I'm not overly concerned about being marginalised while the key players aren't sold on the idea either.

It boils down to asking the populations of certain countries to fund the populations of other countries in order for them to be much less efficient and have facilities available to them long denied the people paying for it. This is not a vote winner.

When has EU progression been halted by the democratic process?

In the British case I suspect if we had a referendum on UK membership of the EU tomorrow the answer would probably be to leave. The Europhobes would quote Churchill, there would be alot of hot air about renegotiation/a new 'Empire of the Seas'/Commonwealth etc etc, passions would rise and the pro-EU argument would get lost by superfluous hyperbole. But clearly it would be a disaster for the UK if we left the EU - indeed it was only this week that Peter Sands (CEO of Standard Chartered bank) briefed the Prime Minister that the biggest threat to the City of London was the risk of the UK leaving the EU. So clearly whilst democracy is highly desirable it would be counter-productive here. So to across Europe and thus the architects of the next step for the EU will inevitably manoeuvre to avoid excessive numbers of referendums.

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

When has EU progression been halted by the democratic process?

Given, the article I linked to referred to the Dutch, one of the last key occasions was when they rejected the EU constitution out of hand in 2008.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

In the British case I suspect if we had a referendum on UK membership of the EU tomorrow the answer would probably be to leave. The Europhobes would quote Churchill, there would be alot of hot air about renegotiation/a new 'Empire of the Seas'/Commonwealth etc etc, passions would rise and the pro-EU argument would get lost by superfluous hyperbole. But clearly it would be a disaster for the UK if we left the EU - indeed it was only this week that Peter Sands (CEO of Standard Chartered bank) briefed the Prime Minister that the biggest threat to the City of London was the risk of the UK leaving the EU. So clearly whilst democracy is highly desirable it would be counter-productive here. So to across Europe and thus the architects of the next step for the EU will inevitably manoeuvre to avoid excessive numbers of referendums.

Are you genuinely celebrating the lack of democracy in the EU? If you run any institution with a sustained deficit of accountability to the people involved in it, the resulting recoil will eventually seriously damage or destroy it- just ask Erich Honecker.

The greater the liberties taken with electorates, the greater the efforts the electorate will eventually go to in order to redress the balance. There is a tragic irony that the stated aim of the EU to negate extremist politics is being completely undermined by the lack of democratic process and allowing the extreme left and right to enjoy successes they haven't seen in a generation. The longer the EU fails to make a democratically convincing argument, the worse it will get.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Ed Selley

Given, the article I linked to referred to the Dutch, one of the last key occasions was when they rejected the EU constitution out of hand in 2008.

And did the EU project then come to a complete halt or did it get re-invented into the Lisbon Treaty which everyone then signed?

Are you genuinely celebrating the lack of democracy in the EU? If you run any institution with a sustained deficit of accountability to the people involved in it, the resulting recoil will eventually seriously damage or destroy it- just ask Erich Honecker.

No, of course I am not 'celebrating the lack of democracy' in the EU. The whole organisation - and the process for generating and approving Treaties - needs a dramatic makeover including correction of the democratic deficit. But any debate about the EU needs to be sensible and that isn't possible at present because the benefits of EU membership are totally lost amongst the anti-EU rhetoric. Our politicians need to actively make their case for the EU rather than deceptively keeping quiet about the positives that they know all to well to avoid alienating the Europhobes. But, with entrenched sentiment (much of it based on complete rubbish), it will take years to rectify the sheer volume of anti-EU tripe before we are in a position to have a balanced discussion on the subject.

If it is any conciliation we can look back to some great turning points in our history and say they weren't very democratic either - the Rump Parliament of the War of Three Kingdoms and the 1688/89 Glorious Revolution sping to mind.

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

And did the EU project then come to a complete halt or did it get re-invented into the Lisbon Treaty which everyone then signed?

As I recall, it was reinvented into a treaty which they (or the UK government at least) refused to ask for their peoples assent on.

Hardly a triumph for democracy and representing the will of the people.

[Wild Weasel]

Yes after the Dutch people rejected it, so did those well known little Englanders - the French.

So instead, the EU pulled it to avoid further defeats (the UK for sure) then relabled it as a treaty to avoid further referenda. The tame political class railroaded it through the various parliaments instead.

[Sonic67]

I looked at the title and immediatly thought "EU: A New Order" (Neuordnung).

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

No, of course I am not 'celebrating the lack of democracy' in the EU. The whole organisation - and the process for generating and approving Treaties - needs a dramatic makeover including correction of the democratic deficit. But any debate about the EU needs to be sensible and that isn't possible at present because the benefits of EU membership are totally lost amongst the anti-EU rhetoric. Our politicians need to actively make their case for the EU rather than deceptively keeping quiet about the positives that they know all to well to avoid alienating the Europhobes. But, with entrenched sentiment (much of it based on complete rubbish), it will take years to rectify the sheer volume of anti-EU tripe before we are in a position to have a balanced discussion on the subject.

You keep painting this as a wayward UK going against an otherwise united Europe. This is not the case. The same democratic deficit exists across an increasing number of member states. It is amusing that while you continue to worry about the UK being marginalised, you also continue to credit it with being the sole derailing point of the enterprise. This is emphatically not the reality. When a founding state of the EU like the Dutch look set to vote against parties that have been rubber stamping EU activities (to say nothing of the French or the ongoing fun and games in southern Europe), the announcements from Brussels take on an increasingly surreal quality.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

If it is any conciliation we can look back to some great turning points in our history and say they weren't very democratic either - the Rump Parliament of the War of Three Kingdoms and the 1688/89 Glorious Revolution sping to mind.

It isn't much consolation as your examples didn't really subvert democratic process as we know it and took place a minimum of 320 years ago. In the ensuing four centuries, democratic mandate has been paramount to successful change. The EU won't be able to run from this forever.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Squiffy

As I recall, it was reinvented into a treaty which they (or the UK government at least) refused to ask for their peoples assent on.

Hardly a triumph for democracy and representing the will of the people.

Be fair, the Irish had a referendum. Then they had another when they didn't get the answer "right".

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Ed Selley

Are you genuinely celebrating the lack of democracy in the EU? If you run any institution with a sustained deficit of accountability to the people involved in it, the resulting recoil will eventually seriously damage or destroy it- just ask Erich Honecker.

But perhaps the trains will run on time?

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Ed Selley

You keep painting this as a wayward UK going against an otherwise united Europe. This is not the case. The same democratic deficit exists across an increasing number of member states. It is amusing that while you continue to worry about the UK being marginalised, you also continue to credit it with being the sole derailing point of the enterprise. This is emphatically not the reality. When a founding state of the EU like the Dutch look set to vote against parties that have been rubber stamping EU activities (to say nothing of the French or the ongoing fun and games in southern Europe), the announcements from Brussels take on an increasingly surreal quality.

I think you miss my intent - or perhaps I am not articulating myself clearly - either way your quote above does NOT capture my beliefs at all.

You say I am "painting this as a wayward UK going against an otherwise united Europe". No - I am not saying that at all. There will be massive tensions surrounding any new changes to the EU. But I think the difference is most other States, whatever their reservations, will press ahead one way or another.

You say that I "credit it with being the sole derailing point of the enterprise". No - I am not saying that at all. We can and will in no way derail the future of the EU - Britain isn't politically strong or influential enough to achieve that. I do think, however, we are undermining our own interests by not fully partaking and influencing the state of play from the start. Britain is a European nation and, as much as the Europhobes like to talk about re-establishing global trading links as primacy, the reality is our trading balance means where the EU goes we will follow. My concern therefore is not the UK 'derailing' the project, merely that we will opt out of influencing it at the start and thus ultimately just have to accept what everyone else has decided. Our Europhobeness is what is going to marginalise us in the decades ahead.

It isn't much consolation as your examples didn't really subvert democratic process as we know it and took place a minimum of 320 years ago. In the ensuing four centuries, democratic mandate has been paramount to successful change. The EU won't be able to run from this forever.

I quite agree. But the timing of the battle must be carefully picked given some of the less rational anti-EU arguments so vocally made.

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

I think you miss my intent - or perhaps I am not articulating myself clearly - either way your quote above does NOT capture my beliefs at all.

You say I am "painting this as a wayward UK going against an otherwise united Europe". No - I am not saying that at all. There will be massive tensions surrounding any new changes to the EU. But I think the difference is most other States, whatever their reservations, will press ahead one way or another.

Where we differ is that I don't think every state is going to manage "one way or another." The signs that this isn't going down too well with quite a few nations are increasingly present.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

You say that I "credit it with being the sole derailing point of the enterprise". No - I am not saying that at all. We can and will in no way derail the future of the EU - Britain isn't politically strong or influential enough to achieve that. I do think, however, we are undermining our own interests by not fully partaking and influencing the state of play from the start. Britain is a European nation and, as much as the Europhobes like to talk about re-establishing global trading links as primacy, the reality is our trading balance means where the EU goes we will follow. My concern therefore is not the UK 'derailing' the project, merely that we will opt out of influencing it at the start and thus ultimately just have to accept what everyone else has decided. Our Europhobeness is what is going to marginalise us in the decades ahead.

Thus far this century, our "Europhobeness" (Europhobia?) has been largely beneficial to the UK. The ability of the EU to operate as a potent global force have hardly been helped by the Euro in recent years either. There is no precedent that international bodies have to undergo these processes to be competitive.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

I quite agree. But the timing of the battle must be carefully picked given some of the less rational anti-EU arguments so vocally made.

For as long as the EU presents no contestable arguments all of the counter arguments- rational or otherwise gain traction all the time. There is no "right" moment- especially when they are proposing changes as radical as they are.