What does the, eu provide, what are its advantages, would it be better to have a free trade policy?
I guess the main advantage from the EU is peace. Instead of having, during centuries, European nations going to war with eachother, they finally got into a bigger conglomerate.
The second point is that it is "a lost dream". Since the breakup of the Roman empire, the unification of Europe has been tried several times, but usually in a military way. Nevertheless, this common heritage makes that there is more common than different amongst European cultures. There seems to be a natural unity to most European cultures - national specificities not withstanding.
However, I don't understand your remark concerning free trade. If there's one thing that the EU is enforcing, it is free trade, no ?
By free trade i meant the freedome to buy goods from any country, without
restriction, the EU certainly does not support this.
I would tend to disagree with that. It may have its own set of rules, but the overall purpose is to make trade easier. The rules themselves are basically a forced equality in order to strengthen the organization and protect it from weaker members bringing it down.
What are you basing this on? Within the EU member states, there most certainly is free trade.
I did say any country, not just member states.
this page has a list unfair trade arguements.
Ok, but that certainly fits with the point of the EU - to enable free trade between member states, while acting as a single strong economic entity for trade with the rest of the world. Trade is certainly a competitive game and being powerful is useful.
And your posts have not been very clear or descriptive to this point....elaboration would help.
May be this will help understand what i mean Russ, i am sorry am not very
good in explaining myself.
Actually I totally aggree with oxfam on this one, the common ag. policie is really really unfair.. and bad... (saying that the British rebate is also bad :) )
BUT in general the EU is a power for good, come back to this thread in a few years and see how much better the lifes of eastern europe are.
As for your point Russ put it well, thats the point of the EU.. Power of Large etc etc
My company sent a guy to Poland to recuit cheap labour, i doubt if the poor
neighbours will get much richer, there are to many thieving people at the top
of the gravy train.
The poor will get richer.. They already are, I am reguarly in Krakow, Budapest, Sofia, Warsaw... And u can already see the difference, between now, and the old east block days. The new budget that was desided on recently, and that common arg. policie you highlighted was under heavy scrutany by member states, because if this mad unfair ideal was rid of it would release even more cash for the east. As it stands they didnt do so badly.. Just like Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal before Poland Hungary and other new member states WILL recieve help... It is happening right now!!!
Then i bow to your better knowledge, but the eu needs to be more transperant, the leeches need to be weeded out, and it should not be
allowed to stiffle the ecconomy of other none member countries.
One thing it supplies is new ground for lobbyists: Abramoff scandal reignites Brussels lobbying debate
Europe is lucky, so far. The European Union has no controls to monitor lobbyists, but the EU is new enough that that hasn't become a significant problem yet. They might beat lobbyists to the punch by learning from the US - plus, Europeans campaign finance laws are different, reducing the lure of lobbyist campaign donations (maybe the US could learn something, as well - most lobbyist contributions tend to bolster a politician's campaign funds rather than line his own pocket).
None the less, Abramoff is a perfect example of how a person can use actual influence with politicians or at least the illusion of influence to line their own pockets, if not politicians pockets. The more success the EU has, the more likely that they'll have problems with lobbyists.
This is indeed a danger with any centralised decision taking. But concerning the EU, there's not much centralized decision taking ! There's essentially a technocratical system that watches over the application of rules. I guess that in the current state, the most a briber could obtain is that these technocrats close their eyes over some rule violations. With the EU constitution in the dustbin, however, one cannot talk about powerful centralized decision. In fact, the EU is flying essentially on autopilot and has barely enough decision power to keep the engines running. Decisions of any strategic importance are still taken by the European Counsil, which is nothing else but the gathering of the 25 heads of state and prime ministers, trying to get an unanimous agreement over things - something that is increasingly difficult to achieve (hence the need for the constitution). There are few exceptions to this rule. The European central bank is maybe such an exception, in that it can autonomously decide over certain things (a bit like Greenspan in the US).
Some bribery might go on concerning, say, acceptance or refusal of proposals for financial aid, but that would be less "politician lobbying" than "federal agent corruption".
Most decisions that can be influenced by lobbying are taken on national levels (and then the EU technocrats verify whether it follows the rules).
Patrick ,your description sounds like the experience the 13 original American states had with the arrangements they were left with after victory in the Revolution. It was catch as catch can, and Congress had very little power to enforce its decisions.
It was in this environment that the Federalist Papers were introduced, originally as separate pieces of journalism that were widely copied. They have been collected into book a treasured by US citizens ever since, and I would recommend them to any European that wants to see more come of the EU.
I think if anyone where to research into the effects the EU has had and countries then they will probably find that it benefits the french and the germans alot more than the eastern european countries. Why is it that French farmers get paid to sit on their behinds all day whilst we have British farmers going out of business?
Separate names with a comma.