Sweden say 'Nej' [Archive]

CWL

15th September 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Well, while we all know that Scandinavia is better than the rest of the world, I guess it could be argued that we aren't faaaaar better. Maybe. ;)
DD, my friend, as you well know we are in complete agreement that Scandinavia is indeed better than the rest of the world. The point is however, that no one will ever know if we keep ourselves isolated. ;)

I expect so. The situation is even more ridiculous for Denmark, as our currency (contrary to Sweden's) is already completely tied to the EU. So, at the moment, thanks to the anti-EU nuts, we have all the obligations but no influence.
There you go. Why shouldn't we sit at the tables? It really is ridiculous. What the hell is wrong with us Scandinavians? Why can't we all be more like the Finns?

The thing that bugs me the most is that if the Nordic countries spoke with one voice within the EU instead of just being critical bystanders we could actually change the things which are bad with the Communities from our perspective (e.g. lack of insight and access to public records, etc.). If you ask me, if we're so darn good, it is our goddamned duty to contribute with the democratic values which which are particular to our countries instead of just frowning on the other European nations. :mad:

Scandinavia needs Europe and Europe bloody well needs Scandinavia!

Originally posted by bjornart
Too little, too late. And I'd be more likely to vote yes to the euro than yes to joining the EU. :D
Sweden should be desperate to have us join anyway, have you seen what the map looks like without us. :roll:
This is painfully true. Norway really needs to join the Union. The combination of Sweden and Finland without Norway is indeed a painful sight:

DanishDynamite

15th September 2003, 12:41 PM

CWL:DD, my friend, as you well know we are in complete agreement that Scandinavia is indeed better than the rest of the world. The point is however, that no one will ever know if we keep ourselves isolated. ;)Exactemundo.
There you go. Why shouldn't we sit at the tables? It really is ridiculous. What the hell is wrong with us Scandinavians? Why can't we all be more like the Finns?Good question. I have a few thoughts on the matter, aside from the obvious one: that not every Dane/Swede/Norwegian carries a knife. :)
The thing that bugs me the most is that if the Nordic countries spoke with one voice within the EU instead of just being critical bystanders we could actually change the things which are bad with the Communities from our perspective (e.g. lack of insight and access to public records, etc.). If you ask me, if we're so darn good, it is our goddamned duty to contribute with the democratic values which which are particular to our countries instead of just frowning on the other European nations. :mad: I have no comment other than I agree.
Scandinavia needs Europe and Europe bloody well needs Scandinavia! You are being too modest. The World needs Scandinavia!
This is painfully true. Norway really needs to join the Union. The combination of Sweden and Finland without Norway is indeed a painful sight: Indeed, I don't know what's wrong with the "fjeldaber". Just because they are floating on a sea of oil they think they can have a free ride! :)

CWL

16th September 2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Good question. I have a few thoughts on the matter, aside from the obvious one: that not every Dane/Swede/Norwegian carries a knife. :)
True, true. But we Scandinavians (as opposed to Fenno-Scandinavians) can drink our fair share of vodka and are also known to use a sauna now and then. We can't curse like the Finns though. Finnish must be the world's best language for cursing.

Saatana! Perkele! :D

Abdul Alhazred

16th September 2003, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

We already have a two-tier Europe.

Tier 1: France and Germany
Tier 2: Everyone else

I cant agree with you over the imperial measure thingy. Really this 2003 not 1703.

Imperial measure is the British Empire standard from the mid-nineteenth century.

If you want 1703 style traditional English measure you'll have to come to my country.

On the other hand, the USA is the first country other than France officially to adopt the metric system. But being a free country it isn't mandatory, except for the cases where it is. :p

Shane Costello

16th September 2003, 04:50 AM

OK, now much of my antipathy towards EMU arises from the relative failure of the pro-euro camp to elucidate positive arguments for monetary union. The problem with arguing "EMU or else" is that the "or else" option looks rather good (take the performance of the British or Swedish economies) while the EMU option doesn't look all that appealing (consider the rather poor performance of most economies in the EMU).

Neither do I accept this loss of influence argument. I mean, how much influence is there to lose? Will France keep within the terms of the growth and stability pact because the Irish government told them to? And isn't loss of influence within the EU and over national destinies inevitable if proposals to do away with national vetoes and commissioners, as well as tax harmonisation and gradual erosion of fiscal sovereignty come to pass?

Mike B.

16th September 2003, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
CWL:Indeed. It is odd how in the UK and Ireland, it is the right-wingers who are anti-EU, while in Scandinavia it is the left-wingers who are against.

Hello DD,

Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Thanks.

karl

16th September 2003, 05:30 AM

It's not a paradox. A country that joins the EU tends to gravitate towards the "average" political direction of the union. People who see this as an improvement over the traditional politics of their country, or over what they expect they can accomplish on their own, are in favor of the EU. Others are against it.

CWL

16th September 2003, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by karl
It's not a paradox. A country that joins the EU tends to gravitate towards the "average" political direction of the union. People who see this as an improvement over the traditional politics of their country, or over what they expect they can accomplish on their own, are in favor of the EU. Others are against it.

I agree with Karl's analysis. The EU is (or is perceived as being) generally more right wing than the Scandinavian countires which have all been under heavy influence from Social Democratic parties for almost half a century. Thus, those who would like to see a shift towards the right in Scandinavia tend to be pro EU.

Shane Costello

16th September 2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
CWL:Indeed. It is odd how in the UK and Ireland, it is the right-wingers who are anti-EU, while in Scandinavia it is the left-wingers who are against.[

Actually, the left wing is the most vociferously anti-EU in Ireland as well. The two largest political parties are right of centre and are pro-EU and support Irish membership of the Euro. Nor do I think it's correct to say that those in the UK opposed to British membership of the EU are right-wingers. The Labour party actively campaigned for Biritish withdrawal for ages. Tony Blair is on record toeing this particular party line as a humble parliamentary candidate in 1983.

Ove

19th September 2003, 03:29 AM

I would hateit if CWL and DD expresses the wiews of all danes and fortunately they don't.

Shane i agree 100% with you. The one major argument for voting yes for this and that has allways been "Otherwise we loose influence" WHAT INFLUENCE . The EEC is run by Germany-France-and Italy and they d**** well do as they please. I fail to see the influence we can hope to achieve in that fora.

No my friends let's get EU back on track. It is a TRADE union NOTHING ELSE. No common police, thank you very much, no common currency and no common army and above all NO COMMON GOVERMENT i Bruxelles. I want my country run from Denmark by the politicians i have voted for the United States of Europe sounds like a horrible horrible nightmare to me especially when i see how the other "United States" are doing.:rolleyes:

How anybody in their right mind can wish a similar society structure here in Europe is beyond my comprehension.:wink8:

Jon_in_london

19th September 2003, 04:17 AM

Here Here!!!

We were prviously told that some 'Bill of Rights' thingy would in no way find its way into EU (and therefore UK) law. It would "have no more importance than The Beano" was what we were told.

Suprised to find it in the proposed EU consititution? Im not.

We have been lied to and will be lied to again. There is a slow and insidious leaching of our sovriegnity and we aint gonna take any more!

Ove

21st September 2003, 11:11 PM

One of our former PM's made a (in)famous speak back in the 80's before one of the votes. He declared "The union is DEAD" (meaning that EU would never turn into a political union).

Hmmmmm.........

In Denmark this speak has the same status as Nixon's "I am not a crook" statement.
:dl:

Shane Costello

22nd September 2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Ove:
Shane i agree 100% with you. The one major argument for voting yes for this and that has allways been "Otherwise we loose influence" WHAT INFLUENCE . The EEC is run by Germany-France-and Italy and they d**** well do as they please. I fail to see the influence we can hope to achieve in that fora.

To prove the point. (www.techcentralstation.com/092203B.html)

I don't think the French are unique in terms of being semi-detached Europeans. I doubt that any member country would subsume it's own interests to that of the greater EU, which is why the whole European project is based on a falsehood, IMO.

Jon_in_london

22nd September 2003, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello

I don't think the French are unique in terms of being semi-detached Europeans. I doubt that any member country would subsume it's own interests to that of the greater EU, which is why the whole European project is based on a falsehood, IMO.

Well that link just shows exactly why I hate the EU. Strangely enough, France can do as she damn well wants but its always the UK being spanked as euroskeptic neanderthals.

Itll be interesting to see what happens to alstom.

I wonder if one might argue that the massive amounts of public money handed over by the SRA to the train operating companies (and particulary to Virgin) are illegal. Any lawyers?

AfaintcoldcupofTea..

22nd September 2003, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by Ove
GO SWEDEN !!!!!!!

:sw:

:clap: :clap: :clap:
Ditto.

Take notice UK and follow suit. Be an anarchist you all know you want to. Also remember you will lose your credit cards safety net when you merge into Euroland, along with many other nice tight rules regarding your safety and crisp flavours.

CWL

22nd September 2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Ove
WHAT INFLUENCE

Dear euroskeptic friends,

"What influence" is indeed the question. "What influence" will we have on the EU if we choose not to particiate.

Simple: none whatsoever. In such case, the future of the Union will indeed be decided by "Germany-France-and Italy" and they will indeed "d**** well do as they please".

End of story, people.

Jon_in_london

22nd September 2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by CWL
Simple: none whatsoever. In such case, the future of the Union will indeed be decided by "Germany-France-and Italy" and they will indeed "d**** well do as they please".

The union is ALREADY run by the Franco-German axis and they ALREADY do as they damn well please.

CWL

22nd September 2003, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

The union is ALREADY run by the Franco-German axis and they ALREADY do as they damn well please.

And not participating in the EU will change that because...?

Shane Costello

22nd September 2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by CWL:
Dear euroskeptic friends,

"What influence" is indeed the question. "What influence" will we have on the EU if we choose not to particiate.

Simple: none whatsoever. In such case, the future of the Union will indeed be decided by "Germany-France-and Italy" and they will indeed "d**** well do as they please".

End of story, people.

Indeed, but then France and Germany can do whatever they want, IMO. All I'm interested in is what's best for my country, and surrendering ever more sovereignty to the EU isn't in our best interest, IMO.

And not participating in the EU will change that because...?

It won't, but the rest of us won't have to follow the French and Germans in whatever they choose to do.

I mean seriously, would the French or Germans ever change their policies because they were influenced by the Irish, Swedish or Danish governments?

CWL

22nd September 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Indeed, but then France and Germany can do whatever they want, IMO. All I'm interested in is what's best for my country, and surrendering ever more sovereignty to the EU isn't in our best interest, IMO.

Define "even more soverignity". Exactly which parts of your "sovereignity" have you surrendered thus far?

It won't, but the rest of us won't have to follow the French and Germans in whatever they choose to do.
And we have to do this now because...?

I mean seriously, would the French or Germans ever change their policies because they were influenced by the Irish, Swedish or Danish governments?
Sweden has had an influence, yes. The current expansion of the EU is a direct result of Sweden's efforts during its presidency of the Union.

Jon_in_london

22nd September 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Define "even more soverignity". Exactly which parts of your "sovereignity" have you surrendered thus far?

European law outweighs British law. That basically means that I could be prosecuted in Britain for doing something that isnt illegal in this country but is illegal according to the mob of gray-train riders in Brussels. Thats A SH*T load of sovreinity to lose!

Originally posted by CWL

Sweden has had an influence, yes. The current expansion of the EU is a direct result of Sweden's efforts during its presidency of the Union.

hehe...

CWL

22nd September 2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
European law outweighs British law. That basically means that I could be prosecuted in Britain for doing something that isnt illegal in this country but is illegal according to the mob of gray-train riders in Brussels.
Such as...?

hehe...
Hehe indeed.

Seriously, let's see some facts behind your claims.

DanishDynamite

22nd September 2003, 10:49 AM

Jon_in_london:European law outweighs British law. That basically means that I could be prosecuted in Britain for doing something that isnt illegal in this country but is illegal according to the mob of gray-train riders in Brussels. Thats A SH*T load of sovreinity to lose!TMK, EU legislation generally has to be transposed to local law in each member country and ratified by said country before it becomes "the law of the land". The only exception (again, TMK) are so-called Regulations issued by the Council of Ministers, which I believe consists of one minister per country. So, yes, if a qualified majority of the member states approve, in this case the evil EU law does automatically become British law. But isn't that the nature of being a member of international organizations?

Abdul Alhazred

22nd September 2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Jon_in_london:TMK, EU legislation generally has to be transposed to local law in each member country and ratified by said country before it becomes "the law of the land". The only exception (again, TMK) are so-called Regulations issued by the Council of Ministers, which I believe consists of one minister per country. So, yes, if a qualified majority of the member states approve, in this case the evil EU law does automatically become British law. But isn't that the nature of being a member of international organizations?

Is it? It depends on the international organization. NATO does't legislate, and the UN only doubtfully does. Certainly the UN doesn't tell member states what taxes to levy, etc.

DanishDynamite

22nd September 2003, 02:19 PM

Abdul Alhazred, welcome to the board.
Is it? It depends on the international organization. NATO does't legislate, and the UN only doubtfully does. Certainly the UN doesn't tell member states what taxes to levy, etc. NATO can invoke the "musketeer" paragraph, which requires member states to supply men and materials for the defense of another member state. The UN Security Council can pass reolutions which are binding for a member country.

BTW, the EU has to my knowledge not told any member states what taxes to levy.

Nyarlathotep

22nd September 2003, 02:51 PM

Perhaps some of you Europeans out there will enlighten me as to why there is such seemingly strong opposition to the Euro. To me, as an outsider, the Euro seems rather like a good idea. Without it I would think it would be like every state in the U.S. having it's own currency and thus having to convert it every time one of us crossed state lines. It would be a major hassle, not to mention costly. So why do those of you who oppose the Euro, oppose it?

Abdul Alhazred

22nd September 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Abdul Alhazred, welcome to the board.
NATO can invoke the "musketeer" paragraph, which requires member states to supply men and materials for the defense of another member state. The UN Security Council can pass reolutions which are binding for a member country.

BTW, the EU has to my knowledge not told any member states what taxes to levy.

But they are talking seriously about "tax harmonization", which means that it is a conceivable outcome.

As for NATO, and the rest, are treaty agreements legislation? There is no NATO body that simply legislates, and there is no enforcement against individuals (rather than sanctions against governments).

The EU legislates (or "regulates") the activities individuals as well as of member governments.

Thus only a goverment can break a treaty, but any individual can be in violation of an economic regulation. It is a very different thing.

Mendor

22nd September 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Perhaps some of you Europeans out there will enlighten me as to why there is such seemingly strong opposition to the Euro. To me, as an outsider, the Euro seems rather like a good idea. Without it I would think it would be like every state in the U.S. having it's own currency and thus having to convert it every time one of us crossed state lines. It would be a major hassle, not to mention costly. So why do those of you who oppose the Euro, oppose it? Three main reasons: Worries about concession/centralisation of certain economic powers (the classic example is interest rates) which some feel should be kept at the member-state level (to prevent problems with a "one-size-fits-all" interest rate, etc.)
Worries that this is the first step towards a European Superstate
Sentimentality for old currency (the "keep the Queen's head on the currency" brigade)
The first two I agree with; the third seems a little silly. (Especially since Britain could keep the Queen's head on their Euro coins, like the Netherlands do)

In the US, you do have a common currency, but then you also have a full political and economic union between the states, which isn't the case in the EU. Yet.

Nyarlathotep

22nd September 2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Mendor
Three main reasons: Worries about concession/centralisation of certain economic powers (the classic example is interest rates) which some feel should be kept at the member-state level (to prevent problems with a "one-size-fits-all" interest rate, etc.)
Worries that this is the first step towards a European Superstate
Sentimentality for old currency (the "keep the Queen's head on the currency" brigade)
The first two I agree with; the third seems a little silly. (Especially since Britain could keep the Queen's head on their Euro coins, like the Netherlands do)

In the US, you do have a common currency, but then you also have a full political and economic union between the states, which isn't the case in the EU. Yet.

I can see why some people would have problems witht he first two and I would also agree taht the third reason is pretty silly. But wouldn't centralization of certain economic powers have some advantages as well, sort of an economy of scale? For that matter wouldn't forming a European superstate also have advantages? From what I have heard, economically, a unified European state would outstrip the U.S. But as I said, I can also see why people might be opposed to those same ideas.

Mendor

22nd September 2003, 03:45 PM

You are right that there are advantages. I won't argue the points too much, as I'm not too well informed.

However, it's as well to keep in mind that with the EU enlargening, there will soon be 20-odd countries using the Euro, with very different economic needs. The European Central Bank can't please everyone with one interest rate, and call me cynical, but I suspect that the ECB will probably pander to the interests of the central bloc (i.e. France, Germany, possibly the UK if we do enter)

If a European superstate ever happens, the UK won't be in it. In general, the British just don't feel sufficiently European to be comfortable with it. (<-- WARNING WARNING BLAZING GENERALISATION ALERT WARNING)

Nyarlathotep

22nd September 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Mendor
You are right that there are advantages. I won't argue the points too much, as I'm not too well informed.

However, it's as well to keep in mind that with the EU enlargening, there will soon be 20-odd countries using the Euro, with very different economic needs. The European Central Bank can't please everyone with one interest rate, and call me cynical, but I suspect that the ECB will probably pander to the interests of the central bloc (i.e. France, Germany, possibly the UK if we do enter)

That point I can see and is something I hadn't thought about. Thanks.

Ove

22nd September 2003, 10:23 PM

I think the main difference compared to USA is that Europe allways has been separate countries with very different history-rules-goverments etc. from kingdoms like GB and Denmark to republics like France. The American states has never been sovereign so there has never been a case of a state "giving up" sovereign status to join the union.

There is also the little matter of language. In USA they all speak some sort of english (well minus the chinese and hispanics and... OK your official language is english :D ) In Europe we speak a dozen or more different languages and at least two of them (England and France) believes that their language is a "world language".

During the last 20+ years there has been a process called "salami tecnique" where EEC has taken more and more power one slice at a time. The Euro is seen as one more slice.

There might as you point out be advantages of a common currency but to many people it is seen as just one more step towards USE (United States of Europe).

By the way i HAVE allready a currency in my pocket that can be used all over Europe, it's called "VISA" ;)

Abdul Alhazred

22nd September 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Ove
I think the main difference compared to USA is that Europe allways has been separate countries with very different history-rules-goverments etc. from kingdoms like GB and Denmark to republics like France. The American states has never been sovereign so there has never been a case of a state "giving up" sovereign status to join the union.

Not since 1865, anyway. But that's another story.

Even at that, the states regulate their own finances to a degree that does not exist for the provinces of Canada, for example.

CWL

23rd September 2003, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Ove
[B]I think the main difference compared to USA is that Europe allways has been separate countries with very different history-rules-goverments etc. from kingdoms like GB and Denmark to republics like France. The American states has never been sovereign so there has never been a case of a state "giving up" sovereign status to join the union.

Again, which particular sovereignity that the European states are "giving up" are we talking about? Please exemplify so that we can discuss the actual facts behind those claims.

There is also the little matter of language. In USA they all speak some sort of english (well minus the chinese and hispanics and... OK your official language is english :D ) In Europe we speak a dozen or more different languages and at least two of them (England and France) believes that their language is a "world language".

And this should prevent the European states from co-operating because...?

During the last 20+ years there has been a process called "salami tecnique" where EEC has taken more and more power one slice at a time. The Euro is seen as one more slice.
Again, please exemplify. What particular "slices" are we talking about? What "power" do you as a Danish citizen have over the Danish Krona?

There might as you point out be advantages of a common currency but to many people it is seen as just one more step towards USE (United States of Europe).

Why is that? And why would a United States of Europe necessarily be bad? As long as the Principle of Subsidiarity is upheld any form of union shouldn't pose a problem. We keep our soverignity where we can, we co-operate where we do not have any "real soverignity" anyway.

By the way i HAVE allready a currency in my pocket that can be used all over Europe, it's called "VISA" ;)

You might want to check your statement of account next time you have used your VISA abroad. ;)

Ove

23rd September 2003, 02:18 AM

Again, which particular sovereignity that the European states are "giving up" are we talking about? Please exemplify so that we can discuss the actual facts behind those claims.

The right to rule Denmark by the goverment that I elected.

And this should prevent the European states from co-operating because...?

I didn't say anything about cooperating.

Again, please exemplify. What particular "slices" are we talking about? What "power" do you as a Danish citizen have over the Danish Krona?

I have the power that it is the DANISH National Bank appointed by the DANISH goverment that deals with matters like interest rate etc. You might be right that it is a power with limitations but I like it better that way.

Why is that? And why would a United States of Europe necessarily be bad?

A United States of Europe is bad because we simply are much too different. I have NOTHING in common with an Italian or a Greek f. inst and i simply does not buy the notion "Big is Beautiful". I have a deep distrust in large organisations, it seems to me that the larger an organisation gets the more burocratic it gets and a common goverment for Europe is simply WAY to large for my likings. (And the USA is not a good example).

My main objection to EEC is that all laws in such a union seems to be made by rule of the lowest common denominator. We have seen that dozens of times when f.inst we talk about consumer protection or similar.

The standard way of doing things in Bruxelles seems to be: "Lets see, which country has the most relaxed demands ...... hmmmm Portugal OK they apply to all EEC. What are you saying in Denmark? Should all electrical appliances sold in Denmark be Approved by DEMKO? Sorry, no can do. That is a "Tecnical trade barrier". Anything that is good enough to be sold in Portugal is also good enough to be sold in Denmark.

As long as the Principle of Subsidiarity is upheld any form of union shouldn't pose a problem. We keep our soverignity where we can, we co-operate where we do not have any "real soverignity" anyway

Yes that is true but i simply doesn't believe that will happen, a future EEC will be ruled by the majority and Denmark is a very little MINORITY, i believe that our interests will be tramped down for the benefit of "common good".

Shane Costello

23rd September 2003, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by CWL:
Define "even more soverignity".

That the EU entails member states surrendering sovreignty to Brussels is self-evident. I believe the preferred euphemism is "pooling of sovreignty". Again, how on earth could Ireland "pool" it's sovreignty with the likes of Germany and France.

Exactly which parts of your "sovereignity" have you surrendered thus far?

The ability to set our own interest rates. Nor would we be able to reinstate capital punishment if we so wished. If proposals on tax harmonisation come to pass we will also lose our ability to set our own rates of income and corporation tax, absolutely vital to this country. And we are also about to lose some of our representation in the European parliament, not to mention the proposals that smaller countires might not automatically be guaranteed a commissioner.

And we have to do this now because...?

Because Ireland rejected the Nice Treaty in a referendum in 2001, and yet the same referendum was held agian in 2002.

Sweden has had an influence, yes. The current expansion of the EU is a direct result of Sweden's efforts during its presidency of the Union.

Great, so now Sweden should go and tell the French to play by the rules.

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
BTW, the EU has to my knowledge not told any member states what taxes to levy.

No, but movesa are afoot for the harmonisation of taxes across the EU.

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep:
Perhaps some of you Europeans out there will enlighten me as to why there is such seemingly strong opposition to the Euro. To me, as an outsider, the Euro seems rather like a good idea. Without it I would think it would be like every state in the U.S. having it's own currency and thus having to convert it every time one of us crossed state lines. It would be a major hassle, not to mention costly. So why do those of you who oppose the Euro, oppose it?

Europe isn't comparable to the US. Firstly the economies of Europe are not all in step with one another, so setting interest rates to suit all member states of EMU is problematic, if not impossible. Europe consists of distinct countries and nationalities that are completely different from US states. These differences make the labour mobility seen in the US very difficult to replicate in Europe. And the US has achieved full political union, something the EU has yet to do. In my case the ECB has set rates that are not suted to Irelands needs. Neither should Ireland have entered EMU without the UK, our major trading partner. The excuse given at the time was that the UK would have to join EMU within three years. Famous last words, perhaps. And theres the small matter of European politicians being worthless and corrupt (and before anyone jumps on me for that comment, our own politicians are probably the worst offenders of all).

Leif Roar

23rd September 2003, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

But wouldn't centralization of certain economic powers have some advantages as well, sort of an economy of scale?

Of course - but the people who can explain what the advantages and disadvantages are aren't certain about which to choose, and the people who are certain about which to choose can't explain the advantages and disadvantages are.

(Edited for better English)

CWL

23rd September 2003, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by Ove
The right to rule Denmark by the goverment that I elected.
You're fortunate indeed to be governed by the government that you elected. I wish that I could say the same.

In what particular way do you feel that the Danish governent presently is prevented to rule Denmark?

I didn't say anything about cooperating.

The EU is not about co-operation in your opinion?

I have the power that it is the DANISH National Bank appointed by the DANISH goverment that deals with matters like interest rate etc. You might be right that it is a power with limitations but I like it better that way.

Does that entail any "power" for you? Can you influence the Danish National Bank in any way? Can the Danish government?

A United States of Europe is bad because we simply are much too different. I have NOTHING in common with an Italian or a Greek f. inst and i simply does not buy the notion "Big is Beautiful". I have a deep distrust in large organisations, it seems to me that the larger an organisation gets the more burocratic it gets and a common goverment for Europe is simply WAY to large for my likings. (And the USA is not a good example).

No-one is suggesting a "common government".

Do you agree however that there are decions which simply cannot be made simlpy on a national level? Examples would be environmental issues and issues relating to harmonization in order to achieve a functional common market.

My main objection to EEC is that all laws in such a union seems to be made by rule of the lowest common denominator. We have seen that dozens of times when f.inst we talk about consumer protection or similar.

The standard way of doing things in Bruxelles seems to be: "Lets see, which country has the most relaxed demands ...... hmmmm Portugal OK they apply to all EEC. What are you saying in Denmark? Should all electrical appliances sold in Denmark be Approved by DEMKO? Sorry, no can do. That is a "Tecnical trade barrier". Anything that is good enough to be sold in Portugal is also good enough to be sold in Denmark.

Who says this? The Commission? The Court? Would you care to name your source for this statement?

Yes that is true but i simply doesn't believe that will happen, a future EEC will be ruled by the majority and Denmark is a very little MINORITY, i believe that our interests will be tramped down for the benefit of "common good". [/B]

Do you really feel that the EU is headed in that direction? I would say that the case is the opposite. Especially with the Eastern European states about to join.

Shane Costello

23rd September 2003, 04:45 AM

Originallay posted by CWL:
Do you agree however that there are decions which simply cannot be made simlpy on a national level? Examples would be environmental issues and issues relating to harmonization in order to achieve a functional common market.

Don't agree with this at all. The signatories of the Kyoto protocoal didn't need to surrender any national sovereignty to agree to it's terms. What "harmonization" would be necessary for a functional common market? Why couldn't a group of sovereign nations agree to set up a free trade zone? Why would they need a constitution and parliament to do so?

CWL

23rd September 2003, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello

That the EU entails member states surrendering sovreignty to Brussels is self-evident. I believe the preferred euphemism is "pooling of sovreignty". Again, how on earth could Ireland "pool" it's sovreignty with the likes of Germany and France.
Again, I can see your claim but I don't see the facts on which you base it.

The ability to set our own interest rates.

What ability to set your own interest rates did you have prior to the introduction of the Euro? Does the policies of the ECB differ from those applied by the Irish National Bank?

Nor would we be able to reinstate capital punishment if we so wished.

Really? I think you may be confusing the European Union with the European Council (the organization behind the European Convention on Human Rights).

If proposals on tax harmonisation come to pass we will also lose our ability to set our own rates of income and corporation tax, absolutely vital to this country.
What exactly are those proposals?

[/quote]And we are also about to lose some of our representation in the European parliament, not to mention the proposals that smaller countires might not automatically be guaranteed a commissioner. [/quote]

How would you lose your representation in the EP?

Because Ireland rejected the Nice Treaty in a referendum in 2001, and yet the same referendum was held agian in 2002.

I don't understand your point.

Great, so now Sweden should go and tell the French to play by the rules.

If the French don't play by the rules, they will be fined - and rightly so.

No, but movesa are afoot for the harmonisation of taxes across the EU.

Could you be more specific? Which particular "moves" are you referring to?

Europe isn't comparable to the US. Firstly the economies of Europe are not all in step with one another, so setting interest rates to suit all member states of EMU is problematic, if not impossible.
Are you suggesting that the economies of the US States are in step with one another?

Europe consists of distinct countries and nationalities that are completely different from US states. These differences make the labour mobility seen in the US very difficult to replicate in Europe.

But you agree in principle that it would be good to replicate? If so, why are you so opposed towards any attempts in that direction?

And the US has achieved full political union, something the EU has yet to do.

Yes, but is "full political union" a necessity? Do you believe that there is an interest of a "full political union" from any of the member states?

In my case the ECB has set rates that are not suted to Irelands needs. Neither should Ireland have entered EMU without the UK, our major trading partner. The excuse given at the time was that the UK would have to join EMU within three years. Famous last words, perhaps.
Again, what leads you to assume that the rates would have been set different by the Irish National Bank? For instance, what were the goals for inflation before Ireland joined the third step of the EMU?

And theres the small matter of European politicians being worthless and corrupt (and before anyone jumps on me for that comment, our own politicians are probably the worst offenders of all).
I'm not going to jump on you for that comment, I am simply going to ask you to provide some facts to support it.

CWL

23rd September 2003, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
[B]

Don't agree with this at all. The signatories of the Kyoto protocoal didn't need to surrender any national sovereignty to agree to it's terms.

Yea, and the Kyoto protocol has proven to be real effective. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I keep hearing you talking about "surrendering national sovereignty". Again what exactly do you mean? I take it you're not just saying it because it sounds good rethorically.

If a country makes a treaty should it not be bound by it?

What "harmonization" would be necessary for a functional common market? Why couldn't a group of sovereign nations agree to set up a free trade zone? Why would they need a constitution and parliament to do so?
Simply because there needs to be a democratic process and an institution for review of such a big apparatus.

I get what you refer to with "parliament" (although I cannot understand why the existence of a democratically elected body of political representatives would be negative), but what exactly do you refer to when you talk of a "constitution"?

Shane Costello

23rd September 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by CWL:
Again, I can see your claim but I don't see the facts on which you base it.

In which case my claim has as much factual basis as yours that failure to join EMU will entail "loss of influence".

What ability to set your own interest rates did you have prior to the introduction of the Euro? Does the policies of the ECB differ from those applied by the Irish National Bank?

The Irish central bank set interest rates before EMU, not the ECB. And the ECB set interest rates far to low than was suited to the Irish economy.

Really? I think you may be confusing the European Union with the European Council (the organization behind the European Convention on Human Rights).

You cannot be a member of the EU without signing the European Convention.

What exactly are those proposals?

That all rates of taxation be similar across the EU.

How would you lose your representation in the EP?

Enlargement means that representation of current members will have to be cut to accomodate new members. Likewise the European commision may have to be likewise reformed. Are you seriously unaware of these developments?

I don't understand your point.

Ireland had to re-hold a referendum, because of pressure from the EU.

If the French don't play by the rules, they will be fined - and rightly so.

But they're not playing by the rules, and they haven't been fined. It's far more likely that the rules will be changed to suit the larger countries than those countries to be reprimanded.

Could you be more specific? Which particular "moves" are you referring to?

These (www.europeanfoundation.org/pubs/books/moving.pdf) Moves (www.openrepublic.org/policyanalyses/Euaffairs/19990508_TAX_HARMONISATION_AND_FRANCE_STOCKHOLM.pd f)

Are you suggesting that the economies of the US States are in step with one another?

No, but labour mobility is much greater in the US. People will move to where the jobs are. In Europe labour mobility is much less because of language an cultural barriers, and the fact more generous welfare provisions act as a disincentive for people to seek work.

Again, what leads you to assume that the rates would have been set different by the Irish National Bank?

Because an Irish Central Bank would have been acting solely in Irish interests, and wouldn't have set rates to suit Germany and France.

But you agree in principle that it would be good to replicate?

Labour mobility across Europe? Fine, but why the necessity for political union? Would treaties between independent countries achieve the same? Ireland and Britain have had mutual free movement of people for eight decades now, despite Ireland gaining independence from the UK in that time.

If so, why are you so opposed towards any attempts in that direction?

Where did I say I was opposed to any attempts in that direction?

Yes, but is "full political union" a necessity? Do you believe that there is an interest of a "full political union" from any of the member states?

Yes. Why do you think they're going to the trouble of drafting an EU constitution?

I'm not going to jump on you for that comment, I am simply going to ask you to provide some facts to support it.

The European Commission resigning en masse in 1999? Gerhard Schroeder attempting to sue the press for speculation on his hair dye? Jacques Chirac spending millions of taxpayers money on food? Edith Cresson appointing her dentist to an important position on AIDS?

Yea, and the Kyoto protocol has proven to be real effective.

Depends on your viewpoint. How many countires that ratified the treaty are now complying with it?

Seriously, I keep hearing you talking about "surrendering national sovereignty". Again what exactly do you mean? I take it you're not just saying it because it sounds good rethorically.

I gave you two specific examples already.

If a country makes a treaty should it not be bound by it?

Yes, which is why I want my countries ability to sign treaties unimpinged, less treaties be signed on our behalf that might not be to our benefit.

Simply because there needs to be a democratic process and an institution for review of such a big apparatus.

Democratic process? National parliaments take care of that. An institution for the review of free trade agreements? Isn't that what the WTO is there for?

I get what you refer to with "parliament" (although I cannot understand why the existence of a democratically elected body of political representatives would be negative)

Not negative, but superfluous in a free trade area.

but what exactly do you refer to when you talk of a "constitution"?

If you don't know about the current moves to draft an EU wide constitution, then find out.

Jon_in_london

23rd September 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by CWL

What ability to set your own interest rates did you have prior to the introduction of the Euro? Does the policies of the ECB differ from those applied by the Irish National Bank?

Again, what leads you to assume that the rates would have been set different by the Irish National Bank? For instance, what were the goals for inflation before Ireland joined the third step of the EMU?

Well, in the case of the UK, our interest rates are at 3.5% compared to 2% in the Eurozone. Im not really an economist but I dont really think dropping interest rates by 1.5% in one go is a good idea. One thing that would happen here is that the property market would go absolutely ballistic.

The British economy is still growing whereas most Eurozone economies are stagnant or in recession, why should we want to unite our fiscal policy with theirs?

The UK fiscal policy is set to best suit the UK. A fiscal policy best set to suit Germany, France, Holland, Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, Latvia, Czech republic, Poland etc etc etc... is not going to be very good for the UK.

So there!

Mike B.

23rd September 2003, 03:27 PM

Does anyone have any data about how demographics affect this issue?

Is there any data suggesting that younger Europeans as a whole are more likely to support greater integration?

Or is it not really a factor?

Or are there patterns in different regions about this?

Thanks.

Ove

23rd September 2003, 11:08 PM

CWL it is obvious that you are totally (i might say naive) optimistic about EEC and i am very sceptic/pessimistic. Let's hope that you is proven right. I am not throwing in the towel but a lot of what we are debating is more about emotions than fact.

But still know:

You're fortunate indeed to be governed by the government that you elected. I wish that I could say the same.

Actually i didn't vote for the present goverment but that's another story.
The EU is not about co-operation in your opinion?
No as far as i have seen up till now it is about nursing your own interests. There's a whole army of lobbyists in Bruxelles.

Does that entail any "power" for you? Can you influence the Danish National Bank in any way? Can the Danish government?
Yes, we Danes elect our goverment and the goverment appoints the management of the National Bank.
No-one is suggesting a "common government".

No??? Then i suggest you start studying the roots of EEC. The goal of the "founding fathers" has allways been to expand EEC into a political union based on USA.

Do you agree however that there are decions which simply cannot be made simlpy on a national level? Examples would be environmental issues and issues relating to harmonization in order to achieve a functional common market.

Yes i agree and THAT is what i believe the EEC should be about but the nex thing they want us to vote for is an EEC army- extended police cooperation - (which may be fine OTOH i would hate to see f.inst German police arresting people in Denmark) and the Euro. Theese 3 things, in my mind, points more towards a common goverment than towards a functional common market.

Who says this? The Commission? The Court? Would you care to name your source for this statement?

Who made the decision i can't say but it is a fact that our own trustworthy DEMKO approval has been replaced with the E-mark and that is not nearly as strict as DEMKO was.

Do you really feel that the EU is headed in that direction? I would say that the case is the opposite. Especially with the Eastern European states about to join.

Well like i started out by saying, i HOPE you are right but frankly i don't think so. But perhaps the fact that we have been in EEC for a longer period than you guys have given us more basis for scepticism (we have also had a couple of votes like your recent). Unfortunately i'm afraid that a majority of Danes will vote for the Euro the next time.

The tactic reminds me of my son's tactic in the supermarket. "Daddy can i have an icecream", "No" . "Yes please daddy", "No", "Ohh please please please" "OK but then keep quiet now".

Leif Roar

23rd September 2003, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

The UK fiscal policy is set to best suit the UK. A fiscal policy best set to suit Germany, France, Holland, Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, Latvia, Czech republic, Poland etc etc etc... is not going to be very good for the UK.!

Of course, if you take that argument to the extreme, you'll get a different fiscal policy for every city, town, county and vapentake. "The London fiscal policy is set to best suit London and is not going to be very good for Liverpool!"

Abdul Alhazred

23rd September 2003, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Leif Roar

Of course, if you take that argument to the extreme, you'll get a different fiscal policy for every city, town, county and vapentake. "The London fiscal policy is set to best suit London and is not going to be very good for Liverpool!"

To a certain extent, something like this is the case among the United States.

True, there is only one currency, Federal taxes are the same everywhere, and there can be no interstate tariffs.

However, state governments set their own taxes, so do counties, cities, etc. Furthermore, governments at all levels can borrow money by issuing their own bonds. The interest income from owning such bonds is exempt from Federal income tax, so it amounts to a partial subsidy.

Local taxes are mostly property taxes.

A few states have no state income taxes.

New York City's wowser municipal government taxes the hell out of tobacco as much to discourage its use as to raise money.

CWL

24th September 2003, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello

In which case my claim has as much factual basis as yours that failure to join EMU will entail "loss of influence".

My claim that Sweden will lose (has lost) influence due to its failure to join the third step of the EMU is based on the simple observation that our Minister of Finance is not allowed on the meetings of the Eurogroup (where important principles and polices are discussed and decided upon) and that the Swedish government will have no insight in or possibility to affect the dealings of the ECB.

The Swedish National Bank has thus far more or less set the same interest rates as the ECB. Moreover, the interest rate is hardly an effective weapon on a macro economical scale. I believe Mr. Friedman showed this already in 1976...

Structural economic problems are better dealt with through fiscal policy - not through monetary policy.

The Irish central bank set interest rates before EMU, not the ECB. And the ECB set interest rates far to low than was suited to the Irish economy.

What do you mean when you say "better suited". In what way? In order to accomplish what?

You cannot be a member of the EU without signing the European Convention.
So I take it you are opposed to the principles of the European Convention simply because it contains a prohibition against capital punishment? Is there nothing in the Irish Constitution to which you are opposed?

That all rates of taxation be similar across the EU.
"All rates of taxation"?!? Who has actually suggested that? Show me a link.

Enlargement means that representation of current members will have to be cut to accomodate new members. Likewise the European commision may have to be likewise reformed. Are you seriously unaware of these developments?
I am quite aware of these developments, but I am not as worried about them as you. You see, I look at the European Parliament from a different perspective than you. I am not as concerned with having national representation as with having a political majority which is consistent with my own political views.

Ireland had to re-hold a referendum, because of pressure from the EU.
Ok, so you say. But what was the point you were trying to get across?

But they're not playing by the rules, and they haven't been fined. It's far more likely that the rules will be changed to suit the larger countries than those countries to be reprimanded.
So far France has not formally exceeded the limits - if (or rather when) they do they will be fined. Romani Prodi has been very firm on this.

I suppose that we shall see...

These (www.europeanfoundation.org/pubs/books/moving.pdf) Moves (www.openrepublic.org/policyanalyses/Euaffairs/19990508_TAX_HARMONISATION_AND_FRANCE_STOCKHOLM.pd f)
Yes there is and has been a discussion on the harmonisation of corporate tax and VAT. All from the perspective of achieving a functional market with fair competition. However, are you aware of any actual proposals for tax harmonisation on the table of any decision making body of the EU? Please show me a link.

No, but labour mobility is much greater in the US. People will move to where the jobs are. In Europe labour mobility is much less because of language an cultural barriers, and the fact more generous welfare provisions act as a disincentive for people to seek work.

I hear you, but if this is the case, why are you so opposed to general harmonisation in order to achieve better mobility of labor, merchandise and capital?

Because an Irish Central Bank would have been acting solely in Irish interests, and wouldn't have set rates to suit Germany and France.
Has this in fact been the case? Were the interest rates really that different in Ireland before the ECB took over? Were the inflation goals any different?

Labour mobility across Europe? Fine, but why the necessity for political union? Would treaties between independent countries achieve the same? Ireland and Britain have had mutual free movement of people for eight decades now, despite Ireland gaining independence from the UK in that time.

Speaking as a commercial lawyer I can from my personal experience safely say that you cannot achieve a true free trading zone with adequate mobility of labour, merchandise and capital without having common rules. Full stop.

Where did I say I was opposed to any attempts in that direction?
Where did you ever say that you were interested in any attempts in that direction? Please explain how you would achieve a common marked without the harmonisation of rules surrounding the market.

I hear a lot of Euroskeptics talking about co-operation, but when it actually happens in practice they are always opposed...

Yes. Why do you think they're going to the trouble of drafting an EU constitution?
It remains to be seen how powerful a document that will be. Most political analysts agree that it is highly unlikely that the EU will be moving in the direction of a United States of Europe super state.

The European Commission resigning en masse in 1999? Gerhard Schroeder attempting to sue the press for speculation on his hair dye? Jacques Chirac spending millions of taxpayers money on food? Edith Cresson appointing her dentist to an important position on AIDS?

Do you have no corruption amongst politicians in Ireland?

If so, why do you expect other European politicians to be any different?

Depends on your viewpoint. How many countires that ratified the treaty are now complying with it?

How many (and which) countries are not?

I gave you two specific examples already.
Which examples (in tangible form please) were those again?

Yes, which is why I want my countries ability to sign treaties unimpinged, less treaties be signed on our behalf that might not be to our benefit.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that any and all decisions to be made in relation to any co-operation on a Europan scale should require the consensus of any and all member states?

Do you seriously believe that a functional common market could be created in this way?

Democratic process? National parliaments take care of that. An institution for the review of free trade agreements? Isn't that what the WTO is there for?
Again, you cannot achieve the desired mobility without common rules. If you are to have common rules there must be a democratic processes for decision making and review on a common level.

Not negative, but superfluous in a free trade area.
Again - common rules, common democratic institution. Hardly superflous.

Without common rules you cannot have a "free" trade area. How do you expect to achieve "freedom" if the participating nations are free to set up their own national trade barriers?

If you don't know about the current moves to draft an EU wide constitution, then find out.
I do know, thank you very much. Again, we shall see what comes out of that process.

CWL

24th September 2003, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

The UK fiscal policy is set to best suit the UK. A fiscal policy best set to suit Germany, France, Holland, Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, Latvia, Czech republic, Poland etc etc etc... is not going to be very good for the UK.

So there!

You are confusing fiscal policy with monetary policy. UK is and will be free to set its own fiscal policy even if it joins the third step of the EMU. See my answer to Shane above.

So there!

CWL

24th September 2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by Ove
[B]CWL it is obvious that you are totally (i might say naive) optimistic about EEC and i am very sceptic/pessimistic. Let's hope that you is proven right. I am not throwing in the towel but a lot of what we are debating is more about emotions than fact.
I won't argue with the above (except for the remark about being naive). This does indeed essentially boil down to whether or not one believes in the future of EEC. You are correct that it is fair that we all recognize that. :)

But still know:

Actually i didn't vote for the present goverment but that's another story.
That makes two of us then.

No as far as i have seen up till now it is about nursing your own interests. There's a whole army of lobbyists in Bruxelles.
As there would be near any institution of power. Lobbying is an inescapable part of the democratic process (whether one likes it or not). No lobbyists in Cristiansborg, eh?

Yes, we Danes elect our goverment and the goverment appoints the management of the National Bank.
Is the management not prohibited to take directions from the government?

No??? Then i suggest you start studying the roots of EEC. The goal of the "founding fathers" has allways been to expand EEC into a political union based on USA.
Really, I thought it began with a simple coal and steel union and expanded from there...

Seriously Ove, you will have to provide me with a source for that claim.

Yes i agree and THAT is what i believe the EEC should be about but the nex thing they want us to vote for is an EEC army- extended police cooperation - (which may be fine OTOH i would hate to see f.inst German police arresting people in Denmark) and the Euro. Theese 3 things, in my mind, points more towards a common goverment than towards a functional common market.
The army matter is not really a tangible question on the table today is it, so let's leave that aside.

As to the other issues I find it very hard to understand why monetary co-operation and joint efforts against criminal activity wouldn't be appropriate measures in order to achieve a functional common market.

Who made the decision i can't say but it is a fact that our own trustworthy DEMKO approval has been replaced with the E-mark and that is not nearly as strict as DEMKO was.
That is of course special pleading. As I know you to be a trustworthy person, I will however accept what you are saying. I have never said that I agree with any and all decisions made on a European level. All I say is that I recognize the necessity for decisions on such a level.

Well like i started out by saying, i HOPE you are right but frankly i don't think so. But perhaps the fact that we have been in EEC for a longer period than you guys have given us more basis for scepticism (we have also had a couple of votes like your recent). Unfortunately i'm afraid that a majority of Danes will vote for the Euro the next time.
Skeptisism is good, I think we all agree on that. I think there is a definite line between skeptisism and isolationism however. Again, how can we influence the EU in a positive way as mere spectators?

The tactic reminds me of my son's tactic in the supermarket. "Daddy can i have an icecream", "No" . "Yes please daddy", "No", "Ohh please please please" "OK but then keep quiet now".

What's so bad about ice cream? Just like the euro, I personally believe it's rather good. ;)

Shane Costello

24th September 2003, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by CWL;
My claim that Sweden will lose (has lost) influence due to its failure to join the third step of the EMU is based on the simple observation that our Minister of Finance is not allowed on the meetings of the Eurogroup (where important principles and polices are discussed and decided upon) and that the Swedish government will have no insight in or possibility to affect the dealings of the ECB.

And despite Ireland having "influence" on the dealings of the ECB, we still have interest rates set at a level unsuited to us.

Structural economic problems are better dealt with through fiscal policy - not through monetary policy.

It depends on the problem. In Irelands case it was an overheating economy and a high rate of inflation. Raising interest rates would have helped curtail any oveheating.

More Here (www.nber.org/feldstein/bg010599.html)

With the single currency there can be only one set of interest rates for the eleven countries of EMU. Although Ireland would now benefit from an increase in interest rates to rein in its explosive growth, the major continental European countries want lower interest rates to stimulate their slowing economies and prevent even higher unemployment.

The divergence of appropriate economic responses has already had a negative effect on Ireland. In the runup to the start of EMU on Jan. 1, Ireland has had to cut its reference interest rate from 5.5 percent to 3 percent, the predominant rate set by the German Bundesbank. The decrease in interest rates has exacerbated an already overheated economy in Ireland.

What do you mean when you say "better suited". In what way? In order to accomplish what?

See above link.

So I take it you are opposed to the principles of the European Convention simply because it contains a prohibition against capital punishment? Is there nothing in the Irish Constitution to which you are opposed?

Strawman. I never opined on any of the provisions of the European Convention, I just used it as an example of how EU membership does curtail the sovreignty of individual states. The analogy with the Irish constitution is false. The Irish constitution can be altered by popular consent in a referendum, AFAIk the European convention cannot.

I am quite aware of these developments, but I am not as worried about them as you. You see, I look at the European Parliament from a different perspective than you. I am not as concerned with having national representation as with having a political majority which is consistent with my own political views.

Fair enough.

I hear you, but if this is the case, why are you so opposed to general harmonisation in order to achieve better mobility of labor, merchandise and capital?

How does general harmonisation aid all of the above? How is the mobility of labour, merchandise and capital currently curtailed? FWIW tax harmonisation would mean Ireland haveing to greatly increase it's rate of corporation tax, making us a less favourable location for direct inward investment, which is a vital component of our economy.

Speaking as a commercial lawyer I can from my personal experience safely say that you cannot achieve a true free trading zone with adequate mobility of labour, merchandise and capital without having common rules. Full stop.

But that was more orless achieved between Ireland and the UK over the past 80 years, despite both countries moving away from each other politically.

Where did you ever say that you were interested in any attempts in that direction? Please explain how you would achieve a common marked without the harmonisation of rules surrounding the market.

You'll have to explain more clearly why harmonisation of rules could be better achieved by political union than by treaties and agreemnets between sovereign nations.

Do you have no corruption amongst politicians in Ireland?

If so, why do you expect other European politicians to be any different?

Yes we do have corruption among politicians in Ireland, the difference being we sometimes get to punish them.

Which examples (in tangible form please) were those again?

Inability to set our own interest rates = loss of monetary sovereignty.

Inability to restore capital punishment = loss of judicial sovereignty.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that any and all decisions to be made in relation to any co-operation on a Europan scale should require the consensus of any and all member states?

Yes.

Do you seriously believe that a functional common market could be created in this way?

Hasn't one been created already?

Again, you cannot achieve the desired mobility without common rules. If you are to have common rules there must be a democratic processes for decision making and review on a common level.

Intergovernmental conferences?

Without common rules you cannot have a "free" trade area. How do you expect to achieve "freedom" if the participating nations are free to set up their own national trade barriers?

Again, why do common rules necessarily require common government?

CWL

26th September 2003, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
And despite Ireland having "influence" on the dealings of the ECB, we still have interest rates set at a level unsuited to us.
Again, have the goals for inflation changed since the ECB took over?

It depends on the problem. In Irelands case it was an overheating economy and a high rate of inflation. Raising interest rates would have helped curtail any oveheating.

More Here (www.nber.org/feldstein/bg010599.html)

As is adequately pointed out in the article to which you refer, the actual problem is obtaining a more flexible labor market. That is the cure - toying with the interest rate contitutes a mere treatment of the symptom (and not a very effective one at that). Steps to de-regulate the labor markets will have to be taken in within the EU if we are to seriously compete with the US market in the long term.

Strawman. I never opined on any of the provisions of the European Convention, I just used it as an example of how EU membership does curtail the sovreignty of individual states. The analogy with the Irish constitution is false. The Irish constitution can be altered by popular consent in a referendum, AFAIk the European convention cannot.
Touché (as to the strawman).

However, the UN Charter contains provisions that prohibit capital punishment for minors. Do you also consider this to curtail the sovereignity of Ireland? Doesn't any international treaty? If so, why is the European Convention on Human Rights (again, not actually a treaty belonging to the EU body of treaties) any different?

How does general harmonisation aid all of the above? How is the mobility of labour, merchandise and capital currently curtailed? FWIW tax harmonisation would mean Ireland haveing to greatly increase it's rate of corporation tax, making us a less favourable location for direct inward investment, which is a vital component of our economy.
It is self-evident that standardization and harmonization aids a common market. For instance, do you have different standards for products within different areas of Ireland? With the obvious risk of begging the question, one might ask oneself why not, if common rules for a common market isn't a desirable thing in itself...

But that was more orless achieved between Ireland and the UK over the past 80 years, despite both countries moving away from each other politically.

More or less?

Has there been no harmonisation between for instance UK and Irish Competition Law during these 80 years? On standards of products?

Again, I think it is rather safe to say that such harmonization are necessities in creating a truly functional market - and yes, the US is a shining example.

If Ireland and the UK have managed to obtain certain harmonization merely through treaties - i.e. without having agreed upon political procedures for decision making - it is not surprising. We are after all only talking about two countries. In the EU context we are presently talking about fifteen countries - and there are lots more to follow.

Are you seriously saying that a co-operation on such a grand scale - between so many countries - does not require set procedures for decision making and review thereof?

You'll have to explain more clearly why harmonisation of rules could be better achieved by political union than by treaties and agreemnets between sovereign nations.
Done. See above.

Yes we do have corruption among politicians in Ireland, the difference being we sometimes get to punish them.
"Sometimes"... interesting. Are you seriously claiming that EU politicians are above the law?

Inability to set our own interest rates = loss of monetary sovereignty.

Inability to restore capital punishment = loss of judicial sovereignty.
Fair enough - although I don't think that those are very impressive examples, as you will gather from my comments above.

Yes.
This simply cannot funcion. See above.

Hasn't one been created already?

Not compared to the US. We are seriously lagging behind and we need to ask ourselves why.

Intergovernmental conferences?
And what exactly do you call the Council of the European Union (http://ue.eu.int/en/Info/index.htm)?

As you seem to be in favor intergovernmental conferences you shouldn't reasonably be opposed to that particular body. In the light of this, may I ask what particular institutions of the EU you are opposed to?

Again, why do common rules necessarily require common government?
Please define "common government". What institution(s) exactly are you referring to?

Drooper

26th September 2003, 03:52 AM

CWL,

I feel I need to clear up a few errors in understanding on your part with regard to monetary policy, monetary unions and optimal currency areas.

Again, have the goals for inflation changed since the ECB took over?

On this point I could make the following comments.

Since the ECB took over Irish monetary policy has changed from exchange rate targetting to a pan-European assymetric inflation target. That in itself is pretty dramatic.

At a more fundamental level. Ireland now has a monetary policy imposed on it by the ECB that bears next to no relation to its true requirements.

As is adequately pointed out in the article to which you refer, the actual problem is obtaining a more flexible labor market. That is the cure - toying with the interest rate contitutes a mere treatment of the symptom (and not a very effective one at that). Steps to de-regulate the labor markets will have to be taken in within the EU if we are to seriously compete with the US market in the long term.

On this series of points.

The ACTUAL problem is not about obtaining more flexible labour markets. It is true that the lack of labour mobility across EU countries (I've seen it quantified as about 1/20th the rate of movement that is displayed across US states) is one of the major reasons why EMU is such a folly. However, more "flexible" labour markets (funny how nobody ever explains what they mean by this non-economic term:) ) will not on their own make the EU an optimal currency area.

The point about "toying with interest rates". Interest rates are the present instrument of monetary policy. Euro area consumer price inflation is the target. It is not toying, it is the act of deploying policy.

Then your final line about de-regulating labour markets to "compete" with the "US market". You might find it interesting as some background that the phrase "competition" is not used in international trade literature. The reason is because, the EU does not compete with the US or any other arbitraririly constructed geographical region.

Before the advent of EMU it was relatively easy to predict the type of behaviour that would ensue. That type of behaviour is now evident:

Extended periods of adjustment in labour markets of constinuent countries (meaning drawn out periods of sub-trend output growth low inflation and accompanying increases in unemployment and vice versa), intespersed by temporary demand shock (say from exchange rate changes or fiscal changes).

This is pretty much what we have.

Germany, sub trend growth for the last 4 years, with lower than Euro average inflation and rising unemployment. There was a temporary pause in this when the economy received a positive demand shock from the large depreciation in the Euro in 1999/2000. Next steps for Germany: more sub-trend growth, padded partially by fiscal easing (in controvension of the stability pact!!!),unemployment will keep moving up.

Ireland: above trend growth and above average inflation with the labour market remaininng at full employment - note a temporary recent negative demand effects from the appreciatio of the Euro. Next steps for Ireland. Above average inflation and growth to continue for another couple of years (notwithstanding new shocks). This cycle will eventually come to an end end and Ireland will most likely enter intto a phase similar to Germany's present one - an extended phase of sub-trend growth and rising unemployment.

From an economic perspective, monetary union in Europe was a completely absurd thing to do. It serves no economic purpose whatsover.

I think it is a credit to the Swedes (and the Danes and British as well) that they were able to see through this political inspired charade. It was also lucky for them that they were given a democratic right to say no thanks.

Shane Costello

28th September 2003, 12:26 PM

Drooper has answered the economic questions better than I ever could, but there are some points I'd like to answer.

However, the UN Charter contains provisions that prohibit capital punishment for minors. Do you also consider this to curtail the sovereignity of Ireland? Doesn't any international treaty?

Not really, since signing up to the UN charter was in itself an exercise in sovereignty, and I'm sure we maintain the power to unilaterally withdraw from it if we wish.

For instance, do you have different standards for products within different areas of Ireland?

It depends. Do we have different standards for products within different areas of the EU?

More or less?

I think you misunderstand the use of this idiom. "more or less" doesn't literally mean more or less, rather it's used to as another term for "approximately".

Has there been no harmonisation between for instance UK and Irish Competition Law during these 80 years? On standards of products?

Actually a lot of legislation and law in this country was originally passed by the House of Commons, and the Irish state retained it on independence. Ireland also inherited most British standards and measures, not to mention the fact that we remained in a currency union with the UK until the late 1970's. OTOH we pursued an independent foreign and constitutional policy, neither of which impeded economic cooperation, freedom of movement or citizenship entitlements.

Are you seriously saying that a co-operation on such a grand scale - between so many countries - does not require set procedures for decision making and review thereof?

No, it's just that I object to co-operation on such a grand scale.

"Sometimes"... interesting. Are you seriously claiming that EU politicians are above the law?

I'm not even sure a legal process exists to prosecute cases of corruption within the EU.

Not compared to the US. We are seriously lagging behind and we need to ask ourselves why.

IMO it's due to an addiction to an outdated socialist model.

Originally posted by Drooper:
The point about "toying with interest rates". Interest rates are the present instrument of monetary policy. Euro area consumer price inflation is the target. It is not toying, it is the act of deploying policy.

Are interest rates any more important in the UK and Ireland, where home ownership is far more prevalent than on the continent?

From an economic perspective, monetary union in Europe was a completely absurd thing to do. It serves no economic purpose whatsover.

Nor was it ever intended to. The architects of EMU have been fairly explicit that the project is motivated by political rather than economic considerations.

I think it is a credit to the Swedes (and the Danes and British as well) that they were able to see through this political inspired charade. It was also lucky for them that they were given a democratic right to say no thanks.

And it's to my countries shame and detriment that we sleepwalked to EMU with barely any debate and a surfeit of hubris.

CWL

1st October 2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Drooper
CWL,

I feel I need to clear up a few errors in understanding on your part with regard to monetary policy, monetary unions and optimal currency areas.

Drooper,

Thank you for your learned opinion.

With your knowledge regarding the matters concerned, may I ask you to explain the purpose of a stabilization policy?

CWL

1st October 2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Not really, since signing up to the UN charter was in itself an exercise in sovereignty, and I'm sure we maintain the power to unilaterally withdraw from it if we wish.
... and what do you fear would happen if you decided to unilateraly withdraw from body of treaties which make the EU?

It depends. Do we have different standards for products within different areas of the EU?
To the extent we do have standards, the EU is to a large extent to thank (or to blame, depending on your POV).

I think you misunderstand the use of this idiom. "more or less" doesn't literally mean more or less, rather it's used to as another term for "approximately".
I understand the idiom in question just fine. I merely indicated that I wanted your to explain why you chose to use it.

Actually a lot of legislation and law in this country was originally passed by the House of Commons, and the Irish state retained it on independence. Ireland also inherited most British standards and measures, not to mention the fact that we remained in a currency union with the UK until the late 1970's. OTOH we pursued an independent foreign and constitutional policy, neither of which impeded economic cooperation, freedom of movement or citizenship entitlements.
Are you or are you not admitting that the legal structures and regulations which UK and Ireland do share have been helpful in the context?

No, it's just that I object to co-operation on such a grand scale.
Ah. Then this is actually where we disagree.

I'm not even sure a legal process exists to prosecute cases of corruption within the EU.
I am not aware of any particular immunity for EU officials.

Unless such immunity exists, any criminal act committed by such an official can be prosecuted in any state which believes itself to have jurisdiction. For instance, Swedish courts have jurisdiction to prosecute in relation to any criminal act which is committed on Swedish territory or in relation to any act which constitutes a criminal act both according to Swedish law and the law according to the country where the act was committed.

IMO it's due to an addiction to an outdated socialist model.
On this particular issue we are in complete agreement.