How should the EU be governed? Eur Council vs Eur Commission

What gives you that idea?

(BTW: since 1979 we had the ECU - a kind of 'artifical currency' for all EU states!)

Walter, Do you know what effect the increase in value of the Euro vs the US dollar has on exports? c.i.

Sure, because I've noticed it, when the DM got higher and higher 25 years ago.

I would argue with that. Europe is, as far as I know, the only continent on which such a far-reaching realignment of government authority has taken place, in the course of the last fifteen years alone. It involved previously embattled states voluntarily ceding administrative competences - as well as legacies of 'centuries of ethnic hatred' - to what essentially was quite an experiment. European integration, in all its slow, tortuous processes spanning decades rather than years, is still one of the most daring reform projects on statehood since the emergence of the nation-state and decolonisation. In short: apparently Europe is not at all as set in its ways as all that.

It has in fact shown itself to be ready to embark on projects - an economic union, a monetary union, now a political union - that are so in contradiction to its history of bloody battles, alternating imperial projects and ever-switching ententes and axises, that many across the Atlantic apparently have some trouble reconciling them with their preconceptions of what 'Europe' is about. They see the wrangling and the twisting about this and that treaty, which reconfirms their image of the ever-divided Europe, but also the actual reality of ever more far-reaching integration and co-operation, and apparently have some difficulties deciding which is the face of the "real" Europe. Thing is - both are the face of the real Europe today.

Each country still has its interests, sometimes rival interests, but instead of defending them on the battlefield or even the marketplace, they fight them out in the fog of negotiations and PR. The new thing, if you're taking one step back, is not so much that countries are now twisting about what exactly should be in the constitution - but that they're drafting one at all.

I would say that, in its actual devolvement of power from national government to both the supra-national and the regional level (take devolution in the UK, for example), the EU countries are actually tackling the challenges of the postmodern era in a more flexible way than governments elsewhere. Wouldn't Latin America, Africa or Asia benefit enormously if they'd take anything like the same steps to opening borders and relativating capitals? Many current "ethnic" conflicts would, I believe, abate if both regionalism and transnationalism were given their proper place more.

If anyone says that's naive, idealistic, that it would be contrary to human nature (of which the nation-state, I gather then, would be the 'natural' expression), I could use your "set in their ways" argument in response. The nation-state is a relatively modern phenomenon, one that emerged in the past two-and-a-bit centuries to reflect new social and economic realities; as these realities keep on transforming so will the concepts of statehood and collective identity. The EU may still falter, struggle and stumble on its further way, but at least Europe is trying to devise answers to the questions those transformations will bring.

And it is good to have it falter and stumble a bit, so that the process will be appropriately gradual; an all-at-once brave new project would be doomed to fail. Perhaps an 'ambiguity-makes-it-work' tack, derived from what george suggests, is a fittingly postmodern way to build these new constructions of statehood and identity, so that we may get there without the glory and bravery, but also without the civil war, that made America.

I think two words sum it up: peace and wealth. Plus a concept: the inherent urge in post-Enlightenment Western civilisation to, always, achieve progress.

The more the horrors of the 20th century recede into memory, the less the "peace" motivator will stir countries forward into integration the way it has done so forcefully since WW2. But for the new member states in Central and South-Eastern Europe the memory of them is surely still lively enough to engender a rush to the safety of the 'European umbrella'.

The wealth factor can and will be argued this and that way, as countries who remain outside the EMU etc will prove to respectively do very well or not so well at all. In the end, however, it is the awareness that old-fashioned economy, with its striving for autarky and its limited national markets and resources, offers no way out of the looming rut that will edge the process on.

The time of the control over international trade cicerone imposter refers to is over, in any case; nowhere in the world do governments manage to tame the huge and sudden currents of the "flash capital". Now you can try to border off your country and maintain on your own, or you can ride the tiger and exercise some control that way. Open borders, open markets, and profit from the economic cross-pollination as students, skilled workers, entrepreneurs and investors pick together their optimal opportunities from across the continent, and yield back the profits of their optimalised efforts to the countries involved. Step one on that was creating the economic and monetary union; but the requirements these pose to harmonised legislation automatically brings the political union into play as well. And it is only with such a political union that the governments can actually regain some control over the political parameters of these economic dynamics, as well.

It is the depressing alternative perspective, of defending the ever more amorphous national interests of their multicultural societies in a world of ever less controllable international business and investment networks, that will keep on pushing governments to seek to be part of such a transnational network themselves as well. As 'the EU', at least they'll be a player, both economically and politically, and able to at least strive to influence the globalised developments - as 'Portugal', 'Slovenia' or 'Belgium', their only hope would be that the world would leave them well alone and let them be with their established welfare states.

Ambitious politicians don't like defensive portfolios, and thus will opt for the EU endeavour instead, feeling there is no alternative in the long run.

(Damn ... I should start writing texts for these guys perhaps, huh? ;-) )

nimh, Where in my statements did I ever opine that; "The time of the control over international trade c.i. refers to is over, in any case; nowhere in the world do governments manage to tame the huge and sudden currents of the "flash capital"." I'm talking about the dynamics of one currency value over another which does 'influence' international trade; some will benefit, and others will suffer. c.i.

(Damn ... I should start writing texts for these guys perhaps, huh? )
------------------
I was thinking the same thing! You make good arguments, as usual, nimh. And, I have thought fondly of the similarities in the forging of the US and the EU.

I have been concerned about the reported decline of Europe, and if the EU can strengthen Europe, I am certainly supportive.

Europe hasn't declined, it's just gotten lazy . . .

Europeans....!?
Too lazy to make babies?

You must mean the other Europe.

BTW, Japan is very active in trying to manipulate the value of the Yen and US Dollar. They seem to understand that the over-valued yen can have drastic negative effects on their exports and international trade. c.ii.

c.i.:

I wrote that you had referred to "the time of the control over international trade". I implied that you presented this time as something the European national governments had given up in the course of opting for EU integration.

Where did I get that? Well, you wrote: "Most of the EU countries that accepted the Euro as their national currency gave up more than their own currency. In many respects, they're helpless to control international trade and inflatioin in their own countries. That's alot of sacrifice for what in return? c.i."

I opine that the supposed sacrifice - becoming "helpless to control international trade" - has nothing much to do with the introduction of the Euro. All governments are increasingly helpless to control international trade, and if they should try (by reimposing tariffs and the like), they'll be swiftly 'punished' by the market.

The Dutch gvt was no more able to control international trade with the guilder than it is with the euro. In both cases, furthermore, economic reality dictated an immediate dependence on what happens in Germany - as the guilder went with the DMark, so we now all go with the Euro. Same, I'm sure, goes for the Danes, or for the Belgians vis-a-vis the old French Franc - the interdependence was there before the currency. Except now at least there's written agreements, drafted to safeguard the Euro, about the respective national governments' behaviour in as far as it influences inflation etc, so at least you now have something to bash your neighbour over the head with when he threatens your currency's stability. Nothing like that in pre-Euro days.

Thank you, you're too kind .. Glad to see you joining this thread!

nimh, If that were true, the US dollar, the Japanese Yen, the British pound, and the Chinese Yuan won't be traded on the currency markets - as is the Euro. c.i.

What do you mean, c.i.? If what were true?

nimh - In response to your comments about the reaction of some in the US who anticipate the EU falling apart. - I see it as a pretty "normal" effect of a unification of nations/states. As you may or may not be aware the Britsh held the same view of the US for a few decades afer we won our independence. IMO, it is something that can only be proven right or wrong with the passage of time.

IMO, with the EU you will continue to see the wrangling between the various nations. It is in exactly what we have here in the US in many ways and we've been at it for over 200 years. The fight never ends it just moves to different hot isues. I think it's the nature of the beast with this type of governmental system.

For the last time: A small country, a member of the EU, basing their currency on the Euro, will have no control over the over-valuation of their currency. Therefore, their ability to compete in the world markets become less. FYI, the Euro increased in value over the US$ by over 13 percent this year. c.i.

c.i.

(I know, you said " for the last time" :wink: )

Perhaps you may find some arguments here

Bibliography of EMU

Walter, I see that artical supporting my position. BTW, my previous post was in answer to nimh. c.i.

There are 2 particular concerns that I have about a United Europe.
#1 The cost of running this vast conglomerate is huge, that means more taxes, more paperwork & more pressure on individuals.

#2 So far no one has told me who or what is going to benefit from all of this, the consumer, the manufacturers, the politicians, civil service. How is the quality of life for Joe Public going to be better ?

In my advancing years, the european union is of little importance to me. I wont be here to see the results of it all.

I feel that The European Union is a chaotic compromise. We have a large number of diverse countries with very differing social, cultural, political, language and economic idologoies. The desire to mould these ideologies and have a uniform approach to life might seem a good idea on the surface but I simply don't trust an artificial burocracy made up up of many nations too come up with an honest and workable program. We are told a united europe will be stronger in economic, political and military terms. But will it ?
It seems to me that the bigger it gets the more unwieldy it gets.
A lot of different national interests will compromise the end result.
As a cosequence we'll end up with the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

olk

I truely understand what you mean.

We, here in Germany, are trying since 1871 to be one nation - quite difficult sometimes.

Because I've been living in the European Community/ European Union since primary school days, I really don't know, how it could look like without it. But elder people ('normal' and those from businesses) tell me, it would be the hell.