I know it's about Union, I understood your implicit point from the OP. That's why I see the individual hypocrysy of a politician as a sideshow... that's why I replied as I did the second time...

You seem to not be addresssing any of my points, about economic interests being in conflict, with 3 main blocks of countries (North, South, East) having very different priorities. Instead of commenting on that, you are going back to the UK details as an example of how you say democratic institutions in the EU are unrepresentative... I even agree mostly, but so what?

In the context of "More Perfect Union" you're almost implying more representative bodies would be better at EU cohesion... which borders on being ridiculous on its face given the electoral dynamics in pretty much every single EU country in the past 10 years (attn: Hyperbole). Either that, or there is no connection between the two topics, but then you've just gone on a non sequitur to the argument I tried to start and you say you want to have...

Sorry if that's harsh TStael... looking a bit deeper, I'd probaly say you seem to consider the internal sociopolitics of specific nations (UK, Luxembourg, Hungary so far) as deeply meaningful to EU unity. But in the EU context, the tensions to the union are predominantly geopolitical and economical, with demography playing a supporting role to both. That's a discussion worth having IMO - interesting different perspectives.

Look at it in general. What divides the EU in your opinion? Can you name one or at most 3 main causes? With you, given how you care for integration, that's an interesting discussion for me to have. But if you are focused on Juncker, Orban and Cameron... well, you're missing the ofrest for the trees. IMO.

U might sweep my opinion, as I might sweep yours - I do find it more charming than harsh, because a fair n square stab at the chest is always welcome, lol! ;-)

As to yer source - the acceptance of the supranational nature of EU = its distinct moral and legislative identity - has NEVER been harmoniously viewed in the EU.

UK has always wanted a mere trade union - but it might do the Union quite some good when they might opt to leave. FR has strongly embraced Europe as an identity, and initially DE just wanted to be rehabilitated - but now it is a force to be reckoned. And quite rightly so - excepting spying their partners such as Elysée and Airbus for US which is pretty shameful, but what Schadenfreude when NSA hacked Merkel then again!

Most of the current members are meanwhile in the EU but for idealism or foolishness of the EU - and only UK and GR seem to want to potentially to leave. And in case of former, maybe we shall see Independent Scotland, and the latter might just be picking the tab of the early second millennia.

There is a lot of populism and unkindness towards the less fortunate because of the economic crises. But does anyone remember this recession was set into motion by sub-prime US domestic housing credits, btw?

But perso I think this is passing, while the democracy deficit is the real issue. Otherwise, I welcome dissolution of the Union - but of course it will not happen because especially the smaller and poorer members benefit a lot.



PS. Brave Scotland! ;-) Corrected the first sentence because there was no juxtaposition but "you" and "you*. Be this not "my" and "yours" lol.

Never a stab, more like a gentle poke surely :) We clearly agree on the role democratic idealism had in EU expansion, as well that cultural integration was always both the necessary goal, as well the Achilles' heel of the EU.

Our fundamental disagreement seems to me is about democratic idealism in practice. Whatever deficit there is (and there is plenty of it in the EU - one of the most elitist pluralist political bodies in the world) works in favor of the EU inertia. Certainly you see the populist movements across the EU all point in the EU dissolution direction? That applies regardless of motives: economic, self-determination, anti-immigation, etc...

Given this simple observation, your thesis that more democratic representation (reducing the democracy deficit) would allow for a better union seems to me flawed. I think it would rather provoke faster dissolution. Do you truly welcome that?


PS: As a minor nitpick, a lot might not remember the subprime crisis trigger, but then again why should they? On one hand remembering that might point too directly at the root causes of big governments joined at the hip with big finance that so obviously indicate we are already deep into fascism 2.0 worldwide * - as someone warned years ago it mostly arrived disguised as democracy and concern for the less fortunate. On the other hand the US rebounded from the recession relatively better than the EU or China. Relatively I say... if there is one thing about the US that the world forgets its the sheer size and variety there. It's inherently a much more resilient economy than most of the world.

* China and Russia are obviously fascist, you just mentioned EU democratic deficit, and the US might be in a large political tension, but under the surface if you look at economic relaities rather than political curtain shows the picture is clearer. And those 4 are pretty much all the geopolitial power in the globe - everything else is regional. Depressing... really depressing.

Oh, own up to it already, lol! The fair n square chest-stab, that is. It's quite alright. :-D

It is my hypothesis that the emergence of far right populist movements in Europe are, in fact, to a great extent attributable to the EU actual and perceived democracy deficiency.

As stated before, when the national parliament members, even, are for the most "crème de la crème" - the most privileged - as opposed to a cross-section of the people they represent - EU can hardly appear down-to-earth. A second silo is applied as to EU inner circle, when even the outer (=national parliaments) is already highly privileged.

But let us put this in context: I deplore that the labour movement, unions and the political left has been pushed more towards the margin. Plausibly because their undeniable success has let many of us forget the struggle it was to get basic workers' rights.

I may be a little cool handed - but if EU purportedly is so useless - I quite look fwd to the cynical and disillusioned members to break away!

But then again, I am here more of the "realpolitik" and u the "agitprop" - no-one is going to do it, right? Is this not a pragmatic validation, in fact, of EU as institution?

Uh, that you see yourself as the realpolitik versus me being agitprop puts me in a cognitive dissonance mode... 0_o
I mean, you're probably the most wears heart on sleeve political utopian around, and when I do agitation it's a sign I've overcommitted emotionally to the exchange of thoughts and should cool down...

Anyway, puzzled as I am if you really believe that or are pulling my leg, at a meta level the nature of power is indeed cyclical. Victory brings power and loss of focus, power corrupts, rebels become the establishment and what's old is new again. Bringing it round to disagree with you once more dear friend :)

Labor unions nowadays mostly (western world context) block the material improvement of the masses of humanity, look no farther than agricultural subsidies in the EU and US. Much like guilds did in the Middle Ages... they do still kind of offer a level of job security and professional perks.

It might be hypocrisy or it might be just an extreme sense of humour. I mean what is wrong if one bad guy calls out another bad guy as what he is? It's not as if Juncker said that he of course is the white knight in shining armor.

I think that of course anyone can call Juncker "Money Launderer and Tax Evasion Abetter". It would be true and fitting. It's probably not his fault that nobody else is doing it, is it?

On the other way the dire situation in Hungary is not only about death penalties. It's much more about repressing the press and media and opposition (http://www.ifla.org/publications/the-new-press-and-media-act-in-hungary) as well as constitutional changes that undermine the power of the constitutional courts (http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/18/hungary-constitutional-change-falls-short). Not to speak of the distasteful violence against minorities like Roma that is kind of typical for Hungary.

So calling Orban "Hello dictator" is probably exactly the right term and many more people in Hungary and in the rest of Europe should have protested against Orban already much earlier and much harder. But they haven't.

I would advice Juncker to have a trip to Moscow and pull the stunt again. I guess this would result in a very witty conversation. :)

In summary: I'm all for calling all people what they really are. The more of it the better.

So you say; but also, I am not quote so coquettish as u when I just aim at throwing sand at someone's eyes.

I am actually a Euro-positive and a left winger, and I can state is as plainly as that, and it feels quite alright. But thx for reminding me of Nelly Furtado - btw. ;-)

My quite unapologetic view is that world would actually rather be brought fwd than backward if the Quatar Footie World Cup workers were brought unto ILO (Interna'l Labour Organisation) standards, for example. Slow growth, to me, is quite a valid economic model that bio/organic represents to me. And US has been significantly stripped of labour union presence ("right to work" state and such) and yet --- toxic credits...

And pray do not quote "guilds" - this hardly involved any universal access to education. Thou I might have to be ashamed of the current Finnish government soon, unfortunately.

As to EU - if it is so useless, and dysfunctional, I welcome members to depart, and leave a more willed core to get about it.

Well, Finnish leading media (Helsingin Sanomat) actually said that "it needs one to know one" and if you want the best, and cannot have a Swiss, a Luxemburger is a logical choice, for a commission that tries to defend tax cohesion.

Quite seriously, as far as I could tell. And I did not quite agree with that.

I actually think when Juncker expressed no regret of his action ("sorry I defrauded my European partners for disproportionately small gain for Luxembourg") he might be better off focusing on technocracy as opposed to "playful" moral condemnations.

I just do not think he has enough capital on his balance sheet for that.

Hungary does not currently adhere to European values, true - but then do something about technocraticly or politically, not just quip about it for some brownie points, or what not. Men like Juncker will not go to Moscow - but kudos for Belgium for being so admirably foolish, actually. :-D

No idea what you meant regarding sand in eyes, coquettish, Nelly Furtado, or guilds in connection to education, nor Finnish government.

As to EU, I see little chances of saving it. Unfortunately, as I quite like the concept. Your comment about more willed core reminds me me of all the rhetoric around Europe at two speeds, by the way... it was unrealistic then and is even more so now.

As for labor standards, they have costs. Imposing minimum standards always stops those beneath to climb up. They are therefore protectionist and regressive. A better example of policies achieving the opposite of what they are sold as I can hardly think of...

Time to cue in The Exploited.....
https://youtu.be/JJYC2hBZnmw

"Fuck Eurocrats" should be their new album name ^o^

Do take it as rhetorical licence, but kindly I hope - "say it wrong, say it right" - because I cannot think of anyone else who has the same degree of implied common ground and disagreement: with solid cores both ways, probably.

But I love "Loose" by Furtado, so thx for that parallel jump of a thought, and reminding! :-)

EU; I think it will survive - or otherwise rise from the ashes - because it is a sensible arrangement that brings weight to European continent that will not be available as stand-alone nations

And as to labour standards, they SHOULD have a cost.

Would any of us, here in the fora, have ourselves; or our brothers and sisters; our parents; or friends n relatives subjected to slave-, child- or seriously hazardous labour?

Probably not...

My commitment to bio goes along these lines; not because it is so cutesy and "healty." I believe in fair labour costs - that assume minimal human dignity; non-fatal nature of work; and non-exploitation.

The EU won't die tomorrow... I see it more on a medium term level, say 50 years from now. It will be a pity if I'm right :(
I just don't think most of the member countries give any thought to geopolitical global projection - now it's all economy...


I think work conditions and work remuneration are related yet distinct topics. You bringing up job standards is therefore making the discussion less clear.

Minimum wage laws impose something that prevents less fortunate people from applying their competitive advantage - they're cheap, likely less skilled - if they can't undercut more skilled and more expensive applicants they won't get hired. End of story, hopefully you won't defend mandated hiring via central planning.

Work conditions impose a set of standards to a role, they make the role more expensive for the hirer, regardless of who they are hiring. Hence from job provider standpoint they are both anti-competitive, but from job applicant standpoint only minimum wage laws are regressive, in how they penalize lack of skill - you know who typically are the less skilled: the poor and young graduates in a nutshell.

You could make the point that standards penalize smaller job providers over larger, as standards increase overhead, etc... for example a family farm might very happily have little Johnny pick some fruit. OR I might get my kid to carry some construction materials while building a new home. Maybe you'd call that illegal child labor, and even slavery? Anyway, you're right job standards also have costs.

So, I can agree with you on job standards, without saying if I think they are overall good or bad - yet that is a non sequitur to minimum wage laws being regressive however...

U are into this geo-political thing quite strongly - what happened to any occupied lands during and post WW2 shall have been traumatizing. But so it was also for Finland, so there.

Dragon Age 2 is my favourite of the series - this whole "Fereldan refugee salary" business is there, and good on BW for tackling a real world topic, methinks!

But while access to education is interlinked with social policies of a given nation, I do in fact think that it should be the (relatively privileged) consumers that need to put their feet down.

If we Europeans (etc) would hate to work by Chinese (etc) labour standards - why do we accept the selling prices; as if nothing sunders with the social standards?

I perso think consumers can and should answer for a lot.

And hence... bio! ;-)

We near agreement, I'm in wonder :) Of course could be I'm misunderstanding you somewhat.

On geopolitics - I assume you mean border changes, territory annexation and such? I'm not that much of an idealist to deny such mechanisms come inevitably with armed conflict, so I'm not traumatized by it at all. That's one of the main risks that comes from going to war, the other being of course demographic. Now, looking at the EU in that context I'd comment two things: first, the admirable desire it had to stabilize european borders, to which the current Ukrainian situation is another nail in the coffin (but let's see how that turns out), by no means was Ukraine the first nail, since admission of a divided Cyprus and to a lesser extent the Russian invasion of Georgia contributed - and as you know there are separatist tensions in several large EU countries - Spain, France, UK.

More meta, is the question of US / EU relations. After WW2 de facto western Europe was akin to a soft US protectorate, whether the UK and France like to admit it or not - call it the security umbrella or whatever, but the EU was born of that. And the core of economic integration across the EU is still its most significant legacy, superior even to the humanistic aspects imo - what to say, les americains are always more effective at capitalist materialism than democratic idealism. So, if you want to talk about a geopolitical trauma during my lifetime, the obvious one is the fall of the Soviet Union, not in itself, but due to the result of US abandonment of responsibility. This is of course a generalization, but I always find it interesting how the "architects" of capitalist economic systems actively try to avoid its moral implications, therefore shooting themselves in the foot and being ambushed by their enemies who do see the moral and cultural consequences of adopting the enemy system much more clearly - this connect to the EU, since this myopic assumption that economic integration was enough when deeper cultural integration clearly required a more structured federalist structure was evident from the outset - but ouhlala, la nation! la nation! non au federalisme. The other aspect of US retreat from Europe was of course a somewhat optimistic and over confident EU extension, mainly eastwards, which as I've already expressed, is both a huge achievement, but also a huge risk. And we'll see how that goes.

Geopolitical parenthesis over. As you see I do enjoy the geopolitical discipline, yes. Let's move into the remaining topic.

I have not played any Dragon Age game, but I can easily imagine the charicature of minimum wage issues in it. Even without playing it I'd point out how the socio economic topic(integration of an immigrant population to standards of the majority existing community) is clearly connected with a geopolitical one (they're refugees from what exactly heh?). Facile answers that do not address the root causes are not as effective as you left leaning folks like to think. Consider for example German integration after unification, and look under the surface whether the east-west socio economic differences are or not present still. And it's been around 25 years already... vast redistributionist transfers of capital might do a lot for infrastructure, but underlying human realities are a very different animal. And yes, when I'm mentioning infrastructure I am consciously making a parallel to EU development funds - I wonder if anyone actually tallied how much Germany payed since 86, and how much Greece received in the same period - ouh la la, but I just choose the letter G at random ;)

Finally, and as you see we agree so much so far - geopolitical traumas' roles in the birth of the EU and its expansion. The connection of population socio economics and national (or supranational) geopolitics being at present mainly the economic sphere. And we get to your third point (I could be miscounting) about consumer driven economic development and its relation to globalization.

You are very right that consumers are responsible. They are responsible for huge increases of standards of living worldwide due to globalization. Kudos to consumers. They are certainly myopic as you point out, but political interference in other countries internal matters is a pandora's box, as post 9/11 developments clearly indicate. And other examples abound, like the failure of Europe to integrate culturally more than it has (yes, I do repeat myself don't I?) Now, to actually engage your point instead of manipulate it to my benefit, yes, of course consumption is to a large extent amoral (note, not imoral) and of course more informed consumers would and should be empowered to make purchasing decisions according to their full moral preferences, with the moral and the more "base" economic motives competing; so the ones needing it go for cheaper stuff, and the ones that want some premium, like ecological food, or the coffee produced by local cooperatives, paying for it instead of trying to get their premium preferences indirectly subsidized by the whole community which might not share their moral principles. Because we want to tolerate different morals right? I think we even call it multiculturalism?

Anyway, the basic answer is we accept different standards because we do see they're different societies, and what's best for us might not be the best for them. Just think about the first low cost manufacturing nation of the globalized world and see how far it came - it didn't need subsidies from anyone, just a couple of world wars as equivalent to its competition commiting suicide. Sure, geography hugely helped the US climb to the top so fast, but other low cost producing nations are also climbing quite fast. And what's happening with the US and the UE looks to me like slow motion suicide / implosion already... Why do you want to put a brake on the others economic development by imposing aritificial labor standards that also don't fit their culture? Give them time and let them mature - empower them with information - they will see what they can aspire to when they have enough to actully raise their eyes above the factory floor, and they will demand it from their government, or maybe they are more authoritarian inclined socially, in which case I guess our grandchildren will see if that is or not more effective than democracy.

Anyway, long rant. I tried to make our disagreements more evident, though as I hope you see we do agree on the core dynamics, we just see them in very different ethical lights.