E U - Latest Idiot Idea !

[manshimajin]

The UK (and to a great extent IOM) is run by small-minded Islanders who can' see past their own coastline.

GD4ELI within what you say there is an excellent point. When you have lived and worked on the European mainland you can see the benefits of the EU in terms not only of economic union but also in terms of politically stable relationships between countries that did not have these in the past.

 

IMO many people in the UK have an "insular" view which in part is a result of the impact of geography on their history (and in part from reading the Express, the Sun and the Mail .)

 

Fortunately Ireland has taken a different stance (maybe because of its history with the UK) and despite the incredible, and probably unrepayable, mess made by the unholy alliance of Politicans, Bankers, Developers and Regulators it is exporting better than ever to Europe and has the one of the strongest balance of payments in the EU.

[John Wright]

The big problem is that with there is no big European Ideal at the moment. Federalism is clearly dead and the UK, intergovernmental co operation model is not really agreed upon, and any way you have to have a central control of even that. There is a democratic defecit and there is a revolt abroad, look at the new Hungarian constitution, if they stick with that they are out, Finlands latest elections and the growth of its anti EU party and the strength of the FN in France and Sarkozy's pandering, breaching Schengen and the reluctance of Merkel and Germany about bail outs.

 

I predict that the EU will be very different in 10 years, there will be a core, UK will not be in it, there will still be a single currency with a proper central bank and central interest rates and euro reserves, not national ones, for Benelux, Germany and possibly France, an external Euro zone, like the sterling area and the African Franc zone used to be, with each country having its own central bank, fixing its own interest rates but the currency being pegged to the Euro at parity and fringe nations with their own floating,ie downwardly depreciating, currencies, which is where the UK will be.

 

The IOM needs to be in the central bit, somehow, to survive long term.

[gazza]

id bet in 10 years the EU has gone as how we know it today.

Its allready in meltdown and on the verge of defeat.

 

By your reckoning the USA is already in a state of collapse. The EU has many sensible and mature politicians who will ensure its survival. The UK (and to a great extent IOM) is run by small-minded Islanders who can' see past their own coastline.

 

well its sure not healty at the moment thats for sure.

 

hmm sensible and mature politicians, right ho.

have you ever watched the debateing in the EU house, its well worth a watch to be honest, i thought ours was a show and a half, the EU chambers puts us in the dark.

[Evil Goblin]

John - you seem to be saying that the IoM should separate from Sterling in favour of its own currency fixed at par against the Euro. The idea of our Tynwald Town Council and its apparatchiks managing a currency frankly appalls me!

[gazza]

John - you seem to be saying that the IoM should separate from Sterling in favour of its own currency fixed at par against the Euro. The idea of our Tynwald Town Council and its apparatchiks managing a currency frankly appalls me!

 

thing is at the moment us being in sterling is helping us, yes the little we do export may not be a lot, but as the £ is cheap at the momnet the uk and the island are doing quite well on the export market for new and used things

[Tempus Fugit]

The latest idiot idea to cut power consumption in the home is to reduce the power of vaccuum cleaners

 

How's a story from September 2010 'latest'?

 

It's a proposal to improve energy efficiency. The telegraphs managed to get all its anti-bile in early in that article before getting to the actual experts who appear to think it's a good idea. Governments should be encouraging these kind of large scale long term changes, this is a good idea.

 

I didn't realise that some cleaners are about 2KW, that's about a 3HP motor in them (nearly as much as a small motorbike !) - that is a bit OTT, but still don't think it will save the planet as they are not in use for that many hours each day

 

(but I bet the eurocrats travel around in huge chauffer driven limos and not on bicycles !)

[John Wright]

separated from sterling and in the central euro managed by a true Euro central bank

 

What we sell, in the main, is our expertise in finacial and other services and we are limited to the UK market place. There are another 400+ million people, within fewer hours and on near identical time zones, we could be selling to if we were in, rather than selling to far flung places.

 

Their business would still come any way.

 

There are no real downsides but many up sides, we gain lots and lose nothing

[VinnieK]

I don't really get how anyone can argue that the EU is a bad idea. Sure, it comes up with some daft unnecessary rules on certain things: show me a governmental organisation that doesn't. However, the more important point is that it's played no small part in ensuring an extended period of peace and stability across most of the continent.

How has it done this? I believe the balance of power during the Cold War was what ensured peace.

 

Indeed, the idea that the EU has been a check on European war is very overblown. The Cold War balance, combined with the shock and devastation, both economic and social, in the aftermath of the first and second world wars (which were really just two parts of the same war) has had far more of an effect. The European Union simply capitalizes on this. The same thing happened in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars: The combination of the presence of a superpower and growing international powers and the wholesale destruction and upheaval of the conflict enabled a relatively peaceful time for Europe.

 

In the context of conflict prevention, the existence of the EU does not really foster peace: it exists because at the moment the European nations want peace. In the aftermath of the Napoleonic conflicts peace became irrelevant the moment the legacy of the Napoleonic conflict faded sufficiently and nation states became powerful enough to try their luck. Feasibly, it could again and if it does the EU can do little to stop it.

 

The same can be said of the old aphorism that trade and economics moderates the impulse for conflict. By 1870 Germany was already the dominant economic and industrial power on the continent and as an exporter came second only to Britain, a date which chimes uncomfortably with the Franco-Prussian War and the first inkling that something big was on the horizon.

[gazza]

good post vinnie.

 

i dont think we have wars between EU members in the next 10-20 years.

but i could see a civil wars starting in that time in the more richer EU members

[manshimajin]

In the context of conflict prevention, the existence of the EU does not really foster peace: it exists because at the moment the European nations want peace. In the aftermath of the Napoleonic conflicts peace became irrelevant the moment the legacy of the Napoleonic conflict faded sufficiently and nation states became powerful enough to try their luck. Feasibly, it could again and if it does the EU can do little to stop it.

 

The same can be said of the old aphorism that trade and economics moderates the impulse for conflict. By 1870 Germany was already the dominant economic and industrial power on the continent and as an exporter came second only to Britain, a date which chimes uncomfortably with the Franco-Prussian War and the first inkling that something big was on the horizon.

On your last paragraph if it is an aphorism that trade and commerce moderates the impulse for conflict it is a very suspect aphorism. Britain and France fought wars throughout the 18th century based on trade and commerce, there were a series of wars in the Baltic based on the same, the entry of Japan into WWII was based on trade driven expansion and the consequent embargoes and on and on...

 

Your statement that "The Cold War balance, combined with the shock and devastation, both economic and social, in the aftermath of the first and second world wars (which were really just two parts of the same war) has had far more of an effect" implies that the creation of the EU was in some way or form detached from this historic environment.

 

In fact the EU was created as a very determined method of ensuring that Europe moved away from the kinds of badly managed quarrels that created continent wide conflicts in Europe over the centuries. Within the context of Europe the EU has been very successful. The existence of pan-European institutions, regulations, arbitration, currency, all help to foster this outcome. It provides a far better means of resolving differences than was provided by the diplomatic/military systems that so frequently failed to resolve differences in the past by anything other than conflict. In reality your examples of WWI and WWII are the (hopefully) last failed examples of that form of sorting out problems on a grand scale in Europe. Hopefully the EU has moved us on to a more mature method of dealing with these things in response to the failures of the past.

 

Europeans wanted peace and Europeans created institutions that would deliver that on an ongoing basis.

[VinnieK]

On your last paragraph if it is an aphorism that trade and commerce moderates the impulse for conflict it is a very suspect aphorism. Britain and France fought wars throughout the 18th century based on trade and commerce, there were a series of wars in the Baltic based on the same, the entry of Japan into WWII was based on trade driven expansion and the consequent embargoes and on and on...

 

We're actually in agreement. My post expresses my scepticism that such an aphorism or principle is true.

 

What I was referring to was the belief that's sometimes held that trade and supranational industry renders war obsolete or impossible, in other words one of the major justifications for founding the European Coal and Steel Community back in the 1950's, and through it the EU and common market we know today.

 

Your statement that "The Cold War balance, combined with the shock and devastation, both economic and social, in the aftermath of the first and second world wars (which were really just two parts of the same war) has had far more of an effect" implies that the creation of the EU was in some way or form detached from this historic environment.

 

In fact the EU was created as a very determined method of ensuring that Europe moved away from the kinds of badly managed quarrels that created continent wide conflicts in Europe over the centuries.

 

Actually, my statement doesn't imply that at all. In fact, I made the historical context of the EU explicit by saying that the EU exists precisely because of that conflict, namely:

 

it exists because at the moment the European nations want peace

 

In fact we're saying pretty much the same thing as far as I can see, so I'm not sure where the point of contention you're hinting at actually is. The thrust of my post wasn't that the EU didn't arise from the historical environment of the Second World War, or with a view to stability and peace; it was questioning how much of that stability and peace it can accurately be credited with.

 

Nevertheless, one point I would contest is:

 

Europeans wanted peace and Europeans created institutions that would deliver that on an ongoing basis.

 

There's no doubt that was and indeed is the intention. Whether such insitutions actually do or are even capable of delivering on, as you say, an ongoing basis, and how far it can be said to have done so is open to question. The statement that the EU prevents war is seriously flawed simply because it's never really been tested: it's only existed a matter of decades and the current European peace coincides with a historical legacy and cultural and political environment which is naturally cautious towards full scale conflict. Because it's never been truly tested, it's difficult to see how the statement that the EU and its institutions have the capability to prevent conflict is justified.

 

I'm not saying that the Union is not without value, but the peace argument that often comes up sounds suspiciously close to 'end of history' statements: they're attractive, but often fall apart under a bit of scrutiny.

 

Like any international institution or arrangement, be it the EU, the Congress of Vienna, the UN or the Leage of Nations, it is successful in achieving its aims if and only if:

 

1. There is an overwhealmingly dominant power prepared and capable of enforcing the current order,

 

or in the absence of 1

 

2. There's an enduring consensus that such institutions and their tenets are worth upholding.

 

The moment we slip into a truly multi-polar world, or one in which the superpowers couldn't care less about Europe, then there is a chance that the consensus will fail and those institutions will break down the moment a nation state feels it can do without them or that they are hindering their progress. At that point conflict becomes a possibility, and little in the way of the political nicities or constitutional statements that bodies such as the EU embody can stand in the way of that.

 

That's not to say that the European project isn't worthwhile in other areas, but I do think it's very optimistic to view it as halting or having put a halt on conflict in Europe and that such a view isn't really a justification of the European Union.

[manshimajin]

 

We're actually in agreement.

I misread your post V.

 

The point I would make is that the EU represents an entirely different form of conflict resolution than existed previously in Europe. This is backed up by pan-European institutions etc...etc...IMO this is a very genuine effort to shift the paridgm and not one that will only endure subject to the tolerance of the larger states. The reason the EU has been constructed the way it has been is to provide a balance to this old form of power diplomacy.

 

It ain't perfect but since it was established as a Common Market in 1957 it has survived and evolved and enlarged over 54 years to the extent of common currency and common borders (with the exception of the insular UK - which necessitates Ireland being reluctantly outside too).

 

As such it has demonstrated more flexibility in its evolution than most state institutions. Given its challenge of dealing with so many disparate ideologies it has been very effective - despite the naysayers.

 

[Keigmeister]

JW - If there is a candidate standing to be an MHK and in his manifesto states he is going to come down on Paedophilia once and for all do you really think a prisoner who was convicted of molesting a child would vote for him? If there is a candidate standing to be an MHK and in his manifesto states he is going to come down on drug crime do you really think a prisoner who was convicted of importing drugs or selling it to young people will vote for him? The fact is if you give prisoners the right to vote you are giving paedophiles, rapists, drug dealers, drug traffickers, burglars, thieves, fraudsters and an entire array of awful people the right to influence society.

 

With regards to comments by others regarding the EU it is the worst thing to happen.

[John Wright]

keigmeister

 

they have the right to vote whilst on remand.

 

there are a maximum 140 of them and an electorate of 65,000 in IOM terms and in UK terms 90,000 out of an electorate of 50 million.

 

OK you get hot spots with prisons in a constituency so I suppose 140 might be 5% of the electorate, but you register them to the constituency they lived in at time of arrest or convuiction and spread them around.

 

Problem is that if you deprive someone of the right to vote, or any other civil right, who is next. Oh I know lets disenfranchise all christians, women, gay men, lesbians, teachers, MHK's, or any other group you care to name. OK prisoners may not be popular, and certainly not vote winners, but nothing you say justifies modern day outlawry, making them into non persons.

 

The vote thing is not an EU thing anyway, but a Council of Europe European Convention of Human Rights thing, and that is domestic law now, any way.

[VinnieK]

The point I would make is that the EU represents an entirely different form of conflict resolution than existed previously in Europe. This is backed up by pan-European institutions etc...etc...IMO this is a very genuine effort to shift the paridgm and not one that will only endure subject to the tolerance of the larger states. The reason the EU has been constructed the way it has been is to provide a balance to this old form of power diplomacy.

 

As I say, I'm fairly skeptical about the conflict thing, but I don't mean to suggest that the intention is anything less than genuine.

 

Still, I can't shake the feeling that in this context much of the EU is simply glitz heaped upon old fashioned balance of power politics and desire for hegemony (which a little bit of economic redistribution thrown in for good measure), and still ultimately dependent on the whims of the nation states themselves. I would put at least some of the EU's success down to the fact that up until now it's simply served the interests of the major regional powers, Germany, France, and even the United Kingdom fairly well. It can perhaps be seen to obviate the need for conflict only by providing the latter two with what their conflicts have always been designed to achieve: a hegemony of Europe, albeit one that is shared and slightly weakened by the active participation of junior partners like the Mediteranean and Eastern European countries.

 

In other words, the success of the EU is not so much one of institutions and integration, but of France and Germany learning to share Europe and settle for a little less than they traditionally aimed for; namely a large degree of political influence backed up by economic superiority, rather than dominance. France can strut about on the world stage, and Germany can strut about Europe, whilst the UK can indulge in the absurd pretence that it's still a world power by not being a full and enthusiastic part of the project, but can still trade with it - everyone's happy and their traditional aspirations are satisfied. So far.

 

The question I'd ask is: what happens should one or more of the regional powers come to view itself as contributing more than it benefits from the EU? The traditional Franco-German axis which has always provided the heart and direction of the EU is already less relevant and influential than it once was and shows signs of internal weakness, whilst there's always been the perception that the Mediterranean and Eastern European members are very much secondary or more minor players who benefit from association with the big two + the United Kingdom.

 

Conflict at that stage isn't an inevitability by any means, but I imagine that in the long term there's a fairly good chance that the internal structure of the European Union will only become weaker, with the union itself possibly fading into irrelevance, and that at that point future conflict will become a possibility.