Sunday, June 22, 2008

Europe Was Going Too Far

A paper I totally agree with at vox.

Decide what Europe should be all about

Rather than forcing more political integration down the throats of Europeans, European leaders should stop for a second and decide what Europe should be all about. We think it should be about deep economic integration and the coordination of policies with clearly identifiable cross-national externalities. Nothing more, nothing less.

9 comments:

Vonric said...

In French you would say: "Yaka"...

French Fry said...

I totally disagree. It's the proponent job to propose. I personnaly don't believe that a political union it's possible... I would be more than happy just to stay with an economic integration and scrap the political one.

Vonric said...

And at some point, how do you improve the economic integration without politics? Is the PACS (the economical arm of Europe for agricultural subjects) economics or politics? The answer might be different whether you ask the French or the English. On the current negotiation by Mandelson, criticized by some French politics, is it political, or economical? sorry... yaka...

French Fry said...

The CAP is an example of why politics is bad at regulating economy... It has nothing economic but the terrible consequences. The economic integration basically free trade is almost complete exception of the services.

The fact that I would agree or not with what Mandelson or other try to achieve does not make me more keen to support the political processes.

To pursue economical integration - extension of the competition on the services - we need political negotiation not integration. It is a process of agreement between countries, not of agreement in the europeen parlement.

Vonric said...

Integrate more at the economical level when you see that the integration Britain want is the opposite of the one France wants ?

(Britain or Ireland: see that people voted NO recently because they fear they Europe might prevent free trade while French voted NO 3 years ago because they thought that Europe was for increasing free trade).

Who said that people have the same views? Isn't it the job of politics to explain that?

French Fry said...

I don't think people in France or in Britain are unhappy with the possibility to move and work freely in each other country. I think they quite enjoy the possibility of buying anything from anywhere in Europe.

Where they are not happy is when the European union wants to decide about what is possible or not in their country.

I see the first point as economical integration, I see the second one as political. And I think the the Irish No, the Dutch No and the French No are a cleat No the the second point, far less to the first one - except for the services in France.

What you seems to think is the advantage of Political Integration - Imposing Laws that people don't want - is exactly what people rejected. And people are not fool they already know how hard it is to get accountability from their gvt, they could no have imagined before how European politician don't give a shit of their opinion ...

Vonric said...

No, you misunderstood me.

What I am saying, is that there is no Economical advantage without a political will. Jean Monnet was not different 60 years ago.

The problem is that the world is complex. Such things as we love each other and do only good things do not exist. Things are complicated.

When you have a complex question, it is the role of people in charge, nominated or elected for that to deal with it, study it (in that respect you wonder about the Irish commissioner :-( who seem more interested by dealing with his horses). But if you bring the subject to global discussion just like that, it is likely that the answer will be completely out of relation with the topic.
In France, one neighbour voted No to the treaty because he was fed up with parking/road fines and wanted to show to Chirac his issue... can you explain where Europe is located there ?
Europe is complicated BECAUSE it is democratic. You are just trying to over simplify the problems, that's why I said Yaka...

French Fry said...

I see your point, the difference is that I don't believe complex question are better resolved by expert. And I don't think politicians would anyway be the best expert - it's in the best interest of politicians to extend their power and to limit their accountability.

The best tool to solve complex problem is the market. and when market fails, use market, because it's very unlikely that government would do any better. But you probably would not agree with that :)

Concerning the frivolity of some people's decision it's likely to add noise, would that influence the result so much? Are people irrational voters?

If you answer yes that's no good point for a political Europe either, it's a good reason to support the market and to diminish the power of politicians.
If you say no then you must accept people choices - isn't the point of democracy, even if you disagree with the majority?

PS: If you think that Europe is a necessity to solve politically complex problem, should we not have by extension a World government too?

Vonric said...

Hey, why not a world governement (ooops, shall we call it the United Nations? ;-) )... why not starting first with less countries and make it work... for example countries located in Europe? ;-)

One are used t osay that about 20% are undecided (probably more for referendums) and swings according to the wind. If the local environment is no good, they are likely to swing the "bad" way... enough to change completely the result of a referendum.