open Democracy News Analysis - future of europe - Comments

Anthony Barnett on "Sarkozyland: France's inward politics "

Anthony Barnett — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:56:47 +0100

Really helpful overview Patrice - better than the IHT!

Mark24609 on "Europe’s elections: why they matter"

Mark24609 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:30:37 +0100

Europe is apathetic to further integration of countries like Turkey into the EU. What matters is that Europe is turning to the right while we continue a course to the left.

Mark
http://mark24609.blogspot.com/2009/06/europes-turn-to-right.html

Not logged in on "The European parliament: problem, and solution"

Not logged in — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:01:45 +0100

In the end in comes down two one question: Do we want a real Union or just a commercial community instead? If its the second we could go directly back to the EC.

That euroscepticism is most common among less educated people is not surprisingly at all. Thanks too national politicians the EU is the source of all evil for them.

What remains is the hope that this will change - somehow. And that the great dream of a united Europe will see that day in time!

florian

Maciek on "The European parliament: problem, and solution"

Maciek — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:27:25 +0100

In my opinion the subsidiary principle says that EU Parliament should be busy with those subjects and problems with which National Parliaments are not busy anymore. If you will introduce your "surgical solution" and cancel the EU Parliament al those subjects will fall back onto National Parliaments and these can be simply overloaded from the start. These in turn will make the new virtual EU Parliament very inefficient body - or may be you should device some number of National Parliamentarians to only EU subjects?
In any case the idea is not so bad but it should be certainly discussed in more detail and the typically devil is sitting there.

englishman on "The European parliament: problem, and solution"

englishman — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 10:43:19 +0100

Good article and good comments. Most of us, at least in the UK, see the EU legislature as remote from doing much that is useful in our everyday lives or, worse, some see it as only doing only that which imposes stupid, pointless and bureaucratic rules on us. The latter view being thanks to a powerful anti-EU lobby that has influence on some tabloid newspapers. Ask anyone in the UK about EU legislation and most will remember rules about the straightness of bananas, the imposition of rules about potatoes being sold only by the kilo (and not in lbs) or the detrimental effects of fishing quotas which the British obey but the French routinely ignore (there is some truth in this latter point actually). More recently there has been some concern about the free movement of people and the large immigration to the UK, not just from other EU but from Africa and Asia, coming via the open borders that the Shengen Agreement permits.

In the UK there is not a huge positive support for the concept of the EU but there is a vociferous lobby that is against it. Most people's attitude to the EU varies from favorable, though apathetic, to skeptical. I think the favourable support is because of a theoretical idea about greater unity between people rather than seeing anything of advantage resulting from European Law. Very few European Laws are portrayed as positive because, if they are good, there is no advantage to them being heralded by local politicians or news media. Sadly the opposite is always the case: laws that have adverse effects are always shown as the "typical" effect of an EU imposition overriding the sensible approach of the local legislature.

The main political parties reflect this view and therefore tend to sustain it. Members of these parties should have a greater visibilty into the genuine benefits of the EU but feel they have to play a game that does not alienate their voters. The Labour party believes in greater unity of the people and sees practical value in the current left-leaning policies from French and German influences while the conservative party has an eye to the views of business and the value of the Erropean market. The Lib-Dems and many other minor parties see the EU as giving them a greater say in the political arena that they are essentially excluded from by the first-past -the-post voting system in the UK. Unfortunately, none of these attitudes are actually very positive in promoting an EU concept.

The recent expenses-for-MPs row in the UK has not yet spread to cover MEP's expenses. I think this is likely to be a future problem for the EU where it has for a long time been suspected that this is a scandal awaiting to erupt. When it does (and it will), this could be very damaging to the EU and even discourage its more ardent supporters.

I agree with many of the comments above and especially the value of the EU as a focus of unity for European countries: a way of underlining our common humanity. However, it may need to have a more solid foundation and stronger political backing if it is to simply not be subsumed into a pointless beaurocracy. I agree with the thoughtful article by Anand Menon that it needs people to see that it is acting directly on behalf of the european populace and that their MEPs are genuinely representing their views. Until this happens, there is no incentive for the press or local politicians to give any credit and plenty of incentive for them to point out deficiencies.

Not logged in on "The European parliament: problem, and solution"

Not logged in — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:23:32 +0100

Unfortunatelly (for the Europeans) the point (in the article) is well made and I must admit, taken.
I live and work in Brussels (the heart of Europe) and it is unmistakable the feeling of void when talking about the European failure. European states have well accepted the idea of a common market and they will never accept the idea of a common socio-political identity. As matter of fact, each European Country (and the political elite of course) is keen on defending national agendas and interests. It would take another 100 years or more to get the foundation of a european identity - for the time being, minorities based on whatsoever credo, are allowed to benefits from the generous contribution of the European Institutions, lavished with taxpayer's money. Let's save some of it - close it down.

jane tse on "The European parliament: problem, and solution"

jane tse — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:13:18 +0100

It is just too easy to blame others. When everyone wants a piece of the EU without making any contribution, the EU would not be able to survive long. Before we want to scrap the parliament, the councils or other institutes of the EU, we have to ask why we want to have a EU?. According to what I understand, the EU is formed to prevent Europe from repeating the painful history of the two devastating Great Wars which had almost destroyed Europe, which had killed millions of soldiers and civilians. So, the purpose of EU is established under a common vision of leaders and in the support of people for specific purposes, which people can probably find them in the EU treaty. We cannot always ask without giving. Europe has been enjoying too long a period of post-war stability and prosperity, apparently, people have also forgotten how their leaders had led them into two Great Wars in the last century, the pain of losing someone they love... History tends to repeat in a cyclic pattern.

Not logged in on "The European parliament: problem, and solution"

Not logged in — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:57:26 +0100

It is just too easy to blame others. When everyone wants a piece of the EU without making any contribution, the EU would not be able to sustain long. Before we want to scrap the parliament, the councils or any other institutes of the EU, we have to ask why we want to have a EU at the very beginning. According to what I understand, the EU is formed to prevent Europe from repeating history of the two devastating Great Wars which had almost destroyed Europe, which had killed millions of soldiers and civilians. So, the purpose of EU is established under a common vision of leaders land support by the people for the peace, security and mutual prosperity of Europe. I cannot think of reaching these goals without sacrificing some of the narrow interests of different nations. Europe has been enjoying a long period of post-war stability and prosperity, apparently, people have forgotten how their leaders had led them into two Great Wars in the last century.

jllortega on "The European parliament: problem, and solution"

jllortega — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:18:16 +0100

You say "The European parliament represents a hangover from thedays when serious statesmen aspired to create a United States of Europe with real powers and a real government in which Europeans would have no choice but to be interested. Those days are long gone". However, this can be seen as the real problem from a proEuropean perspective.

There is no need for an European parliament if there is no will for an Europan governance. I do wish for a United States of Europe, so I see the problem as one of creating an European sense of belonging and identity. This is not impossible. I have witnessed how the long, continuous, untinterrupted pressure of nationalist administrations in Catalonia or Euskadi in Spain have managed to consolidate a national sense of identity in those regions. A similar action by governments directed towards establishing an European identity would probably work.

My point is that the distancement of many European citizens from the European institutions is no natural phenomena, but the result of the deliberate political making of member countries current political leaders, that have had different priotities or goals than developing an European identity, and thus could be reversed. Euroskeptics should be happy with the current situation and proEuropeans should fight to change it.

That said, the idea of having national parliaments act together in substitution of the European parliament has its merit. Still, I think it woud consolidate the European Union as an aggregation of separate entities (i.e. member countries) each defending its own interests againt the others, instead of an European Union as an entity of its own. This is just not my vision.

Paula Allen on "The European parliament: problem, and solution"

Paula Allen — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:51:07 +0100

I get the problem .. it's at the moment a large and expensive body which really exists in isolation from those it should represent. All we ever hear about it is when our national governments seek to shift blame for some piece of legislation they may have had a hand in creating from themselves and on to others.

A very large part of this problem is what does this parliament actually do? .. and why does it matter to me? Every x numbers of years I vote for a candidate I have never heard of and who has not even usually bothered to tell me what they stand for or which of my issues they seek to represent. In my whole life I have never been asked to actually vote on any piece of european policy .. and at 43 that is surely wrong. Other countries have had votes on matters like this federal constitution and something called the treaty of Lisbon. All I know about those is that they would somehow or other take rights away from me and put them in the hands of people in Brussles or somewhere.

While our government has the right to deny us as European citizens, the right to have our say on these matters, all it can ever be seen as is another pointless layer of waste and beurocracy that quite honestly I don't see what we gain from at all. If every citizen of Europe was granted exactly the same civil rights across the board.. in every area of race, colour, creed, sexuality or gender presentation then maybe I could see at least a small glimmer of hope.. but no, we don't even have that. Europe gives me rights which my government can chose to modify or completely ignore at will to suit it's own agenda..

Why do I even vote for a member of this defunct and apparently completely pointless parliament? Because it's the only chance I get to have any positive input at all. I hope my vote helps to keep some nasty xenophobic piece of bad work from so called representing me there.. but honewstly.. after I cast my vote there is a good chance I will not even know who is (or are) my regional elected representative(s) because they serve no function at all. I think I voted for the person whose website i looked at a few weeks ago and thought about writing to with a question concerning the actions of the Belgian border police and their treatment of a transgendered French citizen .. but really i couldn't say because we only hear anything when these people want our votes.. the rest of the time it's complete silence..

*sigh*

Paula

napocapo69 on "The European parliament: problem, and solution"

napocapo69 — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 06:52:14 +0100

I'm sorry...I may have missed the point but I've not understood neither the problem or the solution....

The EU parliament is the foundation of one of the biggest and ambitous project of modern history, a union born from citizen willingness to belong to a wider and richer cutlure and community, that is something unique.

The EU parliament has issues and will continue to have for decades; shutting down it will not give rise to antoher better implementation, considering also the grim period we are living..

In the long run we must be positive and have a vision of a community of EU citizens voting for being represented in the EU the common social interests and not the national interests of each single country.

I personally dream of a real EU consittution that will enforce the national ones and of voting a French (or maybe Spanish?) candidate presenting at best my idea of the EU.

Cheers,

Fabrizio

costas on "Europe’s elections: why they matter"

costas — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:17:07 +0100

Anyone who isn't interested in political systems will have trouble finding any use for the European political structure.Clearly it has the advantage of providing a second lease of life to failed politicians of its member countries, and appears to have ever-expanding properties in that it allows for an unlimited increase in the number of job takers. No one ever speaks of the cost of this political body. What does an MEP cost the taxpayer? Do they pay tax on their salaries? what perks do they get? If MEP's want to prove their worth to European society let them start by discussing what they cost our collective societies to sponsor. We the people, and not our local politicians, should then have the right to tell them if we want to employ them or not.

Dennis Nottebaum on "Is Rasmussen the right man?"

Dennis Nottebaum — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:08:46 +0100

Thanks, this has been changed.

Not logged in on "Is Rasmussen the right man?"

Not logged in — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:33:32 +0100

"Moreover, Rasmussen's minority government has long relied on toleration of the right-wing Folkeparti, a group that has repeatedly used racist, anti-Muslim rhetoric."

The correct name of the party is "Dansk Folkeparti" or "Danish People's Party". Shortening it to "Folkeparti" (which simply translates to "People's Party") makes no sense, since there is another party relatively far out on the left called "Socialistisk Folkeparti" as well, so it wouldn't be clear whether "Folkeparti" refers to a far-right or far-left party.

JulianS on "Is Rasmussen the right man?"

JulianS — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:23:56 +0100

Is this article about the acceptability of Rasmussen to Turkey ? Or about the role of Turkey in the EU and or NATO ? Or about the degree to which Erdogan is a reflection of Turkey ? Of course all three, but it is least persuasive about the last question and therefore hardly at all nuanced about Turkish politics in relation to the first two questions.

The strategic utility of Turkey to NATO on the one hand and to the EU on the other hand is hardly news. Whilst the cast of characters on both sides of the Straits has indeed changed since 1945, and the particular ideological antinomies have transformed, the basic geo-political arguments have remained fairly undisturbed. Indeed there is a persisting continuity to the 'Eastern question'if one's point of departure is "what should be done with the sick man/Turkey ?" So far, so familiar and Nottebaum repeats the well-known plot with some new characters.

As in earlier times though what is almost wholly missing or which is studiously ignored is the complex internal politics of Turkey or the broader Balkan-Anatolian-Levantine region (and beyond). Thus, by way of brief example, the chicanery of Erdogan is neither a barometer of changing Turkish attitudes to Europe nor an accurate reflection of popular Turkish sentiment to the cartoon issue. Simlarly I think it quite mistaken to conflate, as Nottebaum does, - "And
Ankara's elites are hesitant to perform any further pro-European reforms as
long as European governments - especially Germany and France - continue to undermine the perspective of full membership" - the positions of the Ankara elite with the maneouverings of Erdogan and the higher echelons of the AKP. Although I wouldn't use by choice the term "elite", it remains the case that there are huge intra-elite battles which such a conclusion simply ignores. No serious commentator could survey the Ergenoken circus without akcnowledging the high-stakes of the intra-'elite' battles ravaging Turkey.

Earlier Nottebaum observes that "The political costs of the accession process are
starting to outweigh the gains that Turkey aspired to." This is a remarkable claim for its complete neglect of the possible protection afforded to virtually every sector of Turkish society of a meaningful compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. The political cost of failure to join the EU will not be borne by Erdogan and the AKP, it will not even be borne by the army, but it is being borne today and everyday by trade unionists, journalists, university students and professors, workers, national 'minorities', women's groups, environmental groups, and so on. The tune that Erdogan and the AKP played regarding the deisrability of Turkey's accession to the EU is no longer of interest to him let alone of political utility. Erdogan is playing with the EU, and he'll play with NATO to the extent that he can, for reasons of domestic politcal advantage and manipulation in Turkey.

It behoves commentators of the Turkey-EU/Turkey-NATO relationship to at least acknowledge the decisive significance of internal Turkish politicsto regional geo-politics. It behoves such commentators to finally ditch the default assumption that membership of the EU (or even NATO) is an unalloyed benefit, an objective virtue and of unqualified interest to Turkey. That is not how it is seen in Turkey and the wider region.

JulianS