European Union states reaffirm committment to united Europe

[Mormolyce]

Seems more important than ever in the face of a stumbling US and a Russia that's eager to take advantage of that.

I'll believe it when I see it. Until then it is still a technocratic monstrosity.

Technocratic? Hahaha!

I fucking wish. I wonder if Elon Musk is interested in starting a country...

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.euractiv.com/section/heal...ises-eyebrows/



The EU already treats Eastern European members like second grade chattel. Feeding them with sub par waste. The EU needs to die so that people can stop this.

What you're posting sounds like a call for stricter EU regulations on food.

You communist.

[Theodarzna]

Technocratic? Hahaha!

I fucking wish. I wonder if Elon Musk is interested in starting a country...

He would be unlikely to be a good leader.

[Deleted]

Germany is running the EU like a ponzi scheme.

When did German promises free money to evrybady?

- - - Updated - - -

He would be unlikely to be a good leader.

Business executives make bad political leaders, becuse a political leader have to compromise, both within his own faction and with political opponents. He cant use the old "I am the boss obey and do my will or get fired"

[Mormolyce]

He would be unlikely to be a good leader.

Most prominent world leader right now is Donald Trump.

The bar could not possibly be lower.

[Theodarzna]

Most prominent world leader right now is Donald Trump.

The bar could not possibly be lower.

Is he a good political leader?

[Macaquerie]

Most prominent world leader right now is Donald Trump.

The bar could not possibly be lower.

He's the most prominent officeholder, I wouldn't say he's doing much leading.

Is he a good political leader?

Contrary to what you might believe, knowing how things work and how to solve problems is a pretty important trait for a leader to have.

[Kalis]

And I ask again for the 500th time. Replaced with what that allows Europe to compete at the world stage and not split apart by the major powers which would happen without some sort of European Unification?

An economic trading block of loosely aligned nation states, not some European super state.

The answer to "How do we curb the growing anti-EU sentiment, as shown by the rise of political parties such as Front National?" is not "More EU".

[Stelio Kontos]

http://i.imgur.com/ukudBla.png

[Deleted]

No one wants to be the first to leave (ignoring the UK, which was never fully committed anyway) + I think everyone is waiting to see how the Brexit will turn out.

[Queen of Hamsters]

It'll still be a case of some countries pulling all the weight and others just riding their coattails.

[Kalis]

It'll still be a case of some countries pulling all the weight and others just riding their coattails.

When you have wildly divergent strengths of national economies, that is always going to be the case.

The trick is to invest heavily in the weaker economies, in order to bring them up to a higher standard, which the EU does, but that is countered by the single currency, which out of necessity is tailored to German economic interests and lessens the impact of improvements made elsewhere.

Basically the economic crisis of 2008 and its fallout fucked the EU, as they needed to make sure the wealthiest member, i.e. Germany, was in a position to bail out the faltering economies and in doing so made sure that the other economies would be left behind by Germany. The Euro may not have initially had the intent of putting Germany first at the expense of other member states, but that was the outcome.

[Mormolyce]

He's the most prominent officeholder, I wouldn't say he's doing much leading.

Is he a good political leader?

Like I said.

[Elegiac]

Is he a good political leader?

Considering you have a seeming inborn allergy to people who are manifestly intelligent or competent, what defines a good leader in your book should be taken with a large grain of salt.

[Deleted]

That's nice and all but i still think an informative campaign european wide and debates of what the EU actually means and does for the common man would have a far greater impact on public opinion then this. People who believe that the EU is bad won't see any good in this.

This tells me they are still not really getting why people have a problem with the EU, it shows somewhat the disconnect between the man in the street and the EU politician.

True, an information campaign would be extremely useful. That being said, in my country at least, Romania, there have been quite a few. From information done by the news to flyers to conferences to actual classes about what the EU does. They were organized by the Government/state but payed for by the EU.

So... in a way if there are no information campaigns where you live, it could be also your country's fault. Not 100%, but it does play quite a bit into it.

I'll believe it when I see it. Until then it is still a technocratic monstrosity.

Why do you believe that the EU is a technocracy?

Guessing the new EU will crash down to its basic form: the "cool guys" club of rich countries, and the rest will succomb to Russian domination. Already Russia's influence spreads across the Eastern block of EU states, and countries like Romania are sorrounded from all sides by pro-russian states.

What do you base your guesses on? In the end, Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece all signed the act I linked too. Greece even made a change regarding the social stuff.

I think the benefits of the EU outweight any issues. THe amount of protection it does for our rights and freedoms is completely lost on people.

Agreed. While in the last few years they had started somewhat losing sight of the voice of the people, I think that Brexit is somewhat of a wake-up call though.

The EU bureaucrats talk a lot and deliver nothing. The days of the EU are numbered.

I disagree. Here's a part of how the EU is helping Bulgaria, for example(full report in link):
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/...sheet-bulgaria
"Through 10 national programmes, Bulgaria has been allocated EUR 9.88 billion from ESI Funds over the period 2014-2020. With a national contribution of EUR 1.86 billion, Bulgaria has a total budget of EUR 11.73 billion to be invested in various areas, from creating jobs and growth to providing an innovation-friendly business environment as well as advancing social inclusion and protecting the environment."

Then it is really childish to say "I'm totally the best and have defeated you!" as I could claim the same thing about that in some vague incredibly distant thread.

The first big point is that technocracy is itself a lie. Jonathan Haidt's the righteous mind indicates that being more educated does not make one more rational or capable of better judgement but simply to be as biased as non-educated people but with a better capacity to come up with rationalizations. It is effectively inseparable from a form of oligarchy. There is no assurance that that class of oligarchies won't act in class interest as opposed to any other class of oligarchs.

There is a difference between a democracy that elects knowledgeable people and a system in which knowledgeable people are appointed. More over there is a second issue with technocrats specifically, that they are not unbiased, Technocracy is just a smokescreen. It is a political ploy used to implement unpopular policies using alleged "skill and knowledge" as a justification as opposed to "will of the people" that traditional political activists use to back theirs. The technocrats are usually put in power as a face to a specific policy platform - not as independent experts given political influence to solve a problem the best way possible.

When a technocrat is nominated it means that the special interest backing such person is already winning the political battle. This is born out by history, in which technocrats are rarely ever brought in to harm to the powerful. That means they represent a very clear and specific political interest and very often an already agreed-upon (behind the closed doors) plan of action. Similarly when popular politicians get elected they don't start wondering what to do with the issues facing the country. They were elected on a specific platform already.

When Mario Monti - the so called "independent" technocrat - was put in power in Italy it was because the consensus of the elite was that some control was needed to put Italian economy and budget on a proper (EU/EBC approved) road. When Syriza won in Greece it was because the people knew what they wanted very specifically (their campaign promises and pledges).

The main reason for the lack of popularity of technocrats is that in most cases technocrats are being introduced to maintain status quo which has grown unpopular and faces popular unrest or opposition or to implement unpopular reform which faces the same (for example the economic reform in post-soviet countries in 1989-) I have never heard of a "technocrat" being implemented to radically overhaul the economy or the government in a fashion which was popular. Do you know why? Because the same second they suggest a professional, logical, smart reform that aligns with the views of the majority (or sufficiently large plurality) of voters they are being pained as "populists" while the people defending the status quo are being painted as "technocrats". And it doesn't matter if the "populist" is a dumb farmer or a scientific genius with three doctorates just as it doesn't matter that the "technocrat" made the career thanks to friends and political connections. A technocrat is near universally a defender of both the status quo and powerful interests, not "optimal solutions."

Primarily, IMHO, the reason America has a scepticism of intellectuals is not entirely without justification, are said "rational technocrats," really acting independently or is that just an erected facade? Do they act in anyone's interest or for themselves and is it not a bit too convenient that the powerful and institutional forces of the day, the mighty and the strong are never harmed by their actions. Where are the technocrats whose solutions don't involve misery for the majority of the population? It never seems to be that the axe of the technocrat falls upon the Elon Musk's of the world.

Technocracy is a lie, it is merely a tool of the powerful in their war against the weak. Though I'm open to other ideas on the matter, for now I see no precedent for Technocracy or Technocrats being anything other than a clever marketing and PR scam for STEM-Lords.

Romania had 1 year of technocrats being in power and they made some really great changes, and corruption actually decreased in that time.
Just an example: they made a law to ban the appointment of state companies on political reasons. Why? Because whenever a new party got in power they appointed new managers who had no clue on state companies just to ensure that part of the gain went specifically to the party in power. And that hurt the companies badly, like our Railway Company, which is with 1 foot in the grave. At the end of last year we returned to having a political party in power instead of technocrats. They repealed that law. And then they wanted to make a law so that corrupt politicians are given amnesty and released. They still do.
So, overall, maybe technocrats weren't perfect, but they sure were better than our current politicians.

Also, the EU is not a technocracy.

Meanwhile behind the scenes they are all getting ready for an EU with different levels of integration for different countries.

While some supported that, there are many voices against it, so there's weak chances for it. We'll see though, but even if it happens, under current suggestion, it would mean that some countries actually unite in a Federal EU while others sit a bit more until they do so because they're not yet "up to standards" so to say. And honestly, while I wouldn't like a 2-speed EU, I can understand the reasoning when I look at Greece. They had Greece adopt the euro and now it hurt them badly.

May the entire union crumble and fall.

That's a bit ironic considering the UK is on the point of possibly losing Scotland yet again, isn't it? Also, it's not healthy to be hateful.

I also cite Ibn Khaldun on this one, Charisma is far more effective at ruling a country than Intellect.

Well I disagree. I think that it's talking about ruling as in staying in power, not ruling as in actually being beneficial to a country.
Here, let me give some examples:
- sorry to Godwin this from the start, but hey... Hitler had charisma. And he was effective at ruling, as in getting to and staying in power. But ultimately his impact was not beneficial to Germany, quite the contrary. So, through charisma he was a populist leader that tricked the masses into supporting him. He was effective at "ruling the country"
- it is not effective to rule the country through intellect because, when you tell the random peasant that you won't lower taxes because you need them for roads and education and healthcare and whatnot, he'll say "well the other guys said they would, why can't you?". Populist/charismatic leaders lead by tricking people, while technocrats tell them the truth, clear as daylight. People may not like that truth however, they might like the beautiful lies more and believing that "others" are the cause of their issues. In the end was it not said that Nazi Germany had problems because of jews? USSR had problems because of capitalists? USA has problems because of mexicans? Yet those groups were/are not the main problem the countries had/have, they're just the scape-goats.

[Deleted]

I have lived in the EU for 10 years. It's shit.

Look Cybran, I know you dislike the EU, but let's see this clearly:
For a few hundreds of years, major powers have been writing the major decisions. In the end, I remember that even 200 years ago it was "The Great 7 powers" drawing lines in conflicts they weren't even part of.
Is that bad? Yeah, it sure is. Over time however, by attaching themselves to big powers and profiting, other nations have risen. Japan, for example. China, another example. India is closing. Etc.

Weak, unaffiliated countries have usually been forced into the sphere of influence of one or another through coups and other stuff. Afghanistan is a good example. It had an attempted invasion by USSR. Talibans took power. It had an invasion by USA. It's sort of remained in some USA influence.
Cuba, another example. Supported for independence from Spain by the USA only so that USA can make it a sort of colony. Then when a movement against USA started, it was supported by USSR so that USSR can get the influence.

You have to understand that, if along, Bulgaria would not be free and independent. It would still end up under the influence of another power. And the EU isn't perfect (though I don't think it's a Germany ponzi scheme either). The fact remains that if you leave the EU, Bulgaria would become a Russia proxy or an USA proxy. And, as history has shown, neither of the two is better than what we have now. Actually, look even at Ukraine. USA and Russia are fighting for influence there now. And how is Ukraine doing? Well, a part of it was cut, in another part there's a civil war and their economy is held by a string. Would you seriously want that for Bulgaria?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm guessing they're not counting UK when they're saying "27" instead of "28 member states"?

Yes, the UK already made it clear they want out. Also, I believe tomorrow they are going to give the notice in writing. They were invited to the Rome meeting, but they did not go... so... yea.

Well if there's one bit of comfort I can take from Brexit it's that it is helping the EU to become stronger.

I will miss being a part of the EU as I always liked it. Maybe one day we'll go crawling back.. haha.

Well I, for one, hope that if you ever decide to come back, you will be welcomed as equals and trusted part. The UK helped make the EU better along time for how long it's been in it and we thank it.

I hope you get a better course outside the EU as well... but... unfortunately due to how I see other countries trying to extend their sphere of influence, I fear you'll become a puppet of the USA. Which will be terrible for you honestly. I hope I'm wrong though. Maybe the relations with the Commonwealth will be enough to stop the USA influence from creeping too much.

An economic trading block of loosely aligned nation states, not some European super state.

The answer to "How do we curb the growing anti-EU sentiment, as shown by the rise of political parties such as Front National?" is not "More EU".

Well the answer is "a better working EU" and "more information about the EU". In terms of better EU, that's why the discussions now are taking place. In terms of more information... that's still a problem and might be for a while.

Unfortunately the EU is dealing with a rise of populist leaders, some drawing things out of context, some saying true facts. But generally the problem is that currently they are hurting not only the EU, but their countries as well.
Now, the UK, I believe, and this is only my opinion, that the UK, if unhappy about what was happening in the EU, should have used its influence to steer it to a different direction. In the end, France and Germany have done it and the UK had the power to do it as well. You decided to leave instead. And that's unfortunate. I hope it's for the best for you but... I still think that you staying and being the cynical member pointing out problems that may arise would have been more beneficial both for the EU and for you.

[NED funded]

Seems more important than ever in the face of a stumbling US and a Russia that's eager to take advantage of that.



Technocratic? Hahaha!

I fucking wish. I wonder if Elon Musk is interested in starting a country...

- - - Updated - - -



What you're posting sounds like a call for stricter EU regulations on food.

You communist.

I don't believe Elon Musk would be a good political leader. He strikes me as someone that ignores everything that is beneath his big projects ( going to the mars, ubi, etc).

[Elegiac]

I don't believe Elon Musk would be a good political leader. He strikes me as someone that ignores everything that is beneath his big projects ( going to the mars, ubi, etc).

Musk is the sort of person you'd want in an advisory position; he's excellent at coming up with concepts as well as keeping a long term plan on track, but you'd want more detail oriented people running the nuts and bolts of it.

[Kalis]

Well the answer is "a better working EU" and "more information about the EU". In terms of better EU, that's why the discussions now are taking place. In terms of more information... that's still a problem and might be for a while.

There is little to no desire within the EU to reform itself. Looks at their accounts, the auditors would now be giving evidence in court if they were a company, there are too many people on the make.

Now, the UK, I believe, and this is only my opinion, that the UK, if unhappy about what was happening in the EU, should have used its influence to steer it to a different direction. In the end, France and Germany have done it and the UK had the power to do it as well. You decided to leave instead. And that's unfortunate. I hope it's for the best for you but... I still think that you staying and being the cynical member pointing out problems that may arise would have been more beneficial both for the EU and for you.

The UK needed a restriction on free movement of labour, partly because border control is inbuilt into the psyches of island nations, partly due to us not having the infrastructure in place to cope with a million Poles coming to the UK in a short space of time, partly due to people not wanting their culture eroded, plus some other reasons, however for some inexplicable reason many in the EU has decided free movement is sacrosanct.

There is no legitimate reason for it to be untouchable, the views of some in the EU is bordering on religious dogmatism.

[Deleted]

There is little to no desire within the EU to reform itself. Looks at their accounts, the auditors would now be giving evidence in court if they were a company, there are too many people on the make.



The UK needed a restriction on free movement of labour, partly because border control is inbuilt into the psyches of island nations, partly due to us not having the infrastructure in place to cope with a million Poles coming to the UK in a short space of time, partly due to people not wanting their culture eroded, plus some other reasons, however for some inexplicable reason many in the EU has decided free movement is sacrosanct.

There is no legitimate reason for it to be untouchable, the views of some in the EU is bordering on religious dogmatism.

It is a matter of economics.
Free and unrestricted trade requires free movement of labor, otherwise imbalances build up.

[Kalis]

It is a matter of economics.
Free and unrestricted trade requires free movement of labor, otherwise imbalances build up.

That is bollocks. You do not need to have an unlimited importation of workers to trade in goods or services without tariffs.