I'm sort of in favour of letting them in, but only because I hope that might make the whole thing come crumbling around everyone's ankles :-/
I did hear (part of) a particularly astounding debate on Radio 2 (Jeremy Vine show) at lunchtime today. Both "sides" - a conservative MEP and a Prof of International Relations at whatever the University is called in Ankara - failed spectacularly to make coherent or sensible points.
The Tory guy basically fell back on xenophobia, which I find especially disappointing because as an anti-EU-type person I am often accused of being xenophobic when that has nothing to do with it AFAIAC.
The Prof, OTOH, blustered about how Turkey is a "blank slate" economy and therefore it could be exceptionally important to the EU, and that it shouldn't be considered a Moslem nation because it's actually the birthplace of CHristianity, and assorted other irrelevancies.
Yes, that tickled me this morning too. 'Turkey disappointed with EU conditions'. Did they expect the EU to say "Actually, it's fine with us if you want to pretend another of our member states doesn't exist. Go for a holy war if you want to as well."?
Did anyone else think "Getting Turkey into the EU" was going to be about christmas?
Anyway, well, yeah. On the other hand, at some point you might have to accept that you might want codified trade thingies with two countries who don't recognise each other, and letting them go on pretending could be expediant, so it's not inherently stupid. But Cyprus sort of got there first, I think.
Well, IMO and in a nutshell, it's mainly to do with the economic side of things. The differences between the economies of member countries are so huge that it seems absurd to me that we (the UK) should want to tie our pensions, benefits, tax system, etc to so many other disparate ones (with conflicting interests, too). I know these things aren't all integrated at the moment but given time that is the eventual aim, and I would prefer to get out before that happens to reduce the mess that is left as a result.
The common responses to this include comments about the different regions of the UK being quite disparate, and on a larger scale the different regions of the USA (see cam.misc passim). My response to that is that it's a matter of where you draw the line, and I do understand that many people would draw it in a different place from where I would draw it.
I also have a problem with the unelected and unaccountatble nature of the European Commission. That could be fixed without disassembling the entire EU, of course, but unfortunately such a fix doesn't seem likely to happen in any sensible timeframe.
Q. Is that the country you saw, sir? A. I'm not sure. Can you get it to lie down next to france and germany a bit? Q. Go on, you. A. Umm... not sure, it could be luxembourg. Can you make it wear a Tintin hat? Q. Here. A. Yeah, that's it!
But all those are possible without the current and intended levels of integration. There's no reason at all we couldn't have employment, trade and movement agreements with as many other countries as we wanted without all the overheads of the EU as a whole.
I agree that Britain not being in Schengen (given everything else we are signed up to) is a bit of a nonsense.
It's too easy for the nonelected bits (e.g. the Council of Ministers) to push things past the parliament. The very existence of the Commission shows that they're not serious about democracy. The UK has too often committed to major European treaties without public support. The EU spends half its budget on farm subsidies, which are a complete waste of money, bad for the environment and impoverish the Third World. And the Court of Auditors has refused to certify the accounts for the last seven years.
The freedom of movement and of trade is its major redeeming feature, but as geekette8 points out, that's possible with much less political integration.
I'm trying to remember what the US did about its trade status with Taiwan and China. There was certainly a period when the US only recognised the Taiwanese KMT government-in-exile as being "China" and refused to acknowledge the other billion people at all.
Then there's little things like the fact that no atlas can legally be sold in both India and Pakistan: they both have legal requirements that Kashmir be shown belonging to them.
Yeah. I remember reading about how this was a chance to "get their act together", as it were, and join the EU as one country... and how they blew that chance. Mostly, as you say, because of the southern part's vote.
One other thing that bugs me is that I see no way the Eurozone will ever recover the colossal costs of changing from the previous national currencies: they were talking about breaking even within a decade or so, but I bet that by 2015 or so, I'll be able to walk into a newsagent in Hyderabad and have the point of sale terminal show a price in Pounds Sterling, making the whole point moot.
In the process, of course, they've destroyed an important aspect of nations' individual identities. Personally, I think the whole exercise had more to do with federalist hubris than practicality.
Oh — and take a look sometime at what happens to all the tobacco the CAP subsidises farmers to grow.
So far, just about the only upside I've seen for greater European integration is that it would mean less integration with the USA. With a centralised European foreign policy, we'd almost certainly not have ended up involved in the Iraq fiasco.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ewx
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 05:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 05:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 05:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 05:38 am (UTC)I did hear (part of) a particularly astounding debate on Radio 2 (Jeremy Vine show) at lunchtime today. Both "sides" - a conservative MEP and a Prof of International Relations at whatever the University is called in Ankara - failed spectacularly to make coherent or sensible points.
The Tory guy basically fell back on xenophobia, which I find especially disappointing because as an anti-EU-type person I am often accused of being xenophobic when that has nothing to do with it AFAIAC.
The Prof, OTOH, blustered about how Turkey is a "blank slate" economy and therefore it could be exceptionally important to the EU, and that it shouldn't be considered a Moslem nation because it's actually the birthplace of CHristianity, and assorted other irrelevancies.
Sigh.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 05:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 05:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 06:05 am (UTC)Anyway, well, yeah. On the other hand, at some point you might have to accept that you might want codified trade thingies with two countries who don't recognise each other, and letting them go on pretending could be expediant, so it's not inherently stupid. But Cyprus sort of got there first, I think.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 06:06 am (UTC)Well, IMO and in a nutshell, it's mainly to do with the economic side of things. The differences between the economies of member countries are so huge that it seems absurd to me that we (the UK) should want to tie our pensions, benefits, tax system, etc to so many other disparate ones (with conflicting interests, too). I know these things aren't all integrated at the moment but given time that is the eventual aim, and I would prefer to get out before that happens to reduce the mess that is left as a result.
The common responses to this include comments about the different regions of the UK being quite disparate, and on a larger scale the different regions of the USA (see cam.misc passim). My response to that is that it's a matter of where you draw the line, and I do understand that many people would draw it in a different place from where I would draw it.
I also have a problem with the unelected and unaccountatble nature of the European Commission. That could be fixed without disassembling the entire EU, of course, but unfortunately such a fix doesn't seem likely to happen in any sensible timeframe.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 06:06 am (UTC)A. I'm not sure. Can you get it to lie down next to france and germany a bit?
Q. Go on, you.
A. Umm... not sure, it could be luxembourg. Can you make it wear a Tintin hat?
Q. Here.
A. Yeah, that's it!
How not to recognise belgium.
holy war
Date: 2004-12-17 06:09 am (UTC)got there first
Date: 2004-12-17 06:11 am (UTC)Re: holy war
Date: 2004-12-17 06:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 06:25 am (UTC)Although Britain's still not in Schengen. Bah.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 06:28 am (UTC)I agree that Britain not being in Schengen (given everything else we are signed up to) is a bit of a nonsense.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 07:09 am (UTC)It's too easy for the nonelected bits (e.g. the Council of Ministers) to push things past the parliament. The very existence of the Commission shows that they're not serious about democracy. The UK has too often committed to major European treaties without public support. The EU spends half its budget on farm subsidies, which are a complete waste of money, bad for the environment and impoverish the Third World. And the Court of Auditors has refused to certify the accounts for the last seven years.
The freedom of movement and of trade is its major redeeming feature, but as
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 07:11 am (UTC)As for your other points, I agree entirely.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 07:12 am (UTC)Then there's little things like the fact that no atlas can legally be sold in both India and Pakistan: they both have legal requirements that Kashmir be shown belonging to them.
Re: got there first
Date: 2004-12-17 07:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 11:28 am (UTC)One other thing that bugs me is that I see no way the Eurozone will ever recover the colossal costs of changing from the previous national currencies: they were talking about breaking even within a decade or so, but I bet that by 2015 or so, I'll be able to walk into a newsagent in Hyderabad and have the point of sale terminal show a price in Pounds Sterling, making the whole point moot.
In the process, of course, they've destroyed an important aspect of nations' individual identities. Personally, I think the whole exercise had more to do with federalist hubris than practicality.
Oh — and take a look sometime at what happens to all the tobacco the CAP subsidises farmers to grow.
So far, just about the only upside I've seen for greater European integration is that it would mean less integration with the USA. With a centralised European foreign policy, we'd almost certainly not have ended up involved in the Iraq fiasco.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-17 05:38 pm (UTC)