What Is The Point Of The Eu?

[Steppenpig]

Organisations are like living creatures, they don't exist because they have a 'point', they exist because they are able to perpetuate themselves.

That's the basic answer, but you can add in a few factors as to how they are able to perpetuate themselves.

Most people have no idea what the EU is up to. Amusingly, its current (economically Thatcherite) direction is probably exactly the opposite of what it's most ardent supporters actually think.

I have read blogs by Italians saying things like "how would we cope on our own outside the EU?" Weird. Scary.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Steppenpig

[wonderpup]

The point of the EU is to enslave us for the benefit of multi nationals and internatioanl bankers.

Obviously.

Many a true word spoken in jest?

On a philosophical level the institutions of Europe have drunk long and deeply at the fountain of Neo Liberal cool aid- so I'm sure in their minds the interests of multi nationals, bankers and the common folk are in perfect alignment, so they are completely mystified as to why the streets of southern Europe are full of pissed off plebs demanding changes and see no relationship between their pursuit of policies like austerity and the rise of parties like Syriza or Podemos- who they regard as aberrations that arrived from a clear blue sky.

[wonderpup]

I think the EU was firstly to stop war within Europe, think how many lives have been lost in 100 years.........

it was also to help former Soviet states to become financially viable and to break free from Communism.

The idea originally was as a superstate to be able to protect smaller states from the USSR or Russia now....

Im sure the Ukraine wishes it was part of the EU as does Belarus ,

Im writing this from a city called Daugavpils, in Latvia which has similar problems to Donetsk in the Ukraine.... there in a fair chance Putin wants to take back this city also and some residents want to go back to Russia.... the reason Mr Putin hasn't tried to "protect ethnic Russians... a la Donetsk" is because of the EU.........

Im strongly in favour of the EU... and can see what fantastic things its done for some countries, i do agree that Britain has lost more than its gained, but if war broke out with say Russia im sure that any person in Britain would want a united Europe......

The point of Europe is in case of war, and its very short sighted to forget that................

Sadly I feel your faith in the EU as regards this matter is misplaced- we are talking about an entity that cannot muster a coherent response to the issue of migrants crossing it's southern borders, so the idea that it could present a united front in the face of potential conflict in the east is I think optimistic to say the least.

Greece is a full member of the EU and look what they are doing to the Greeks. It's all about money I'm sad to say- that's the only 'value' the EU now seems to be able to agree on- anything else is simply not on their radar- so looking to the EU to defend such non profitable things like 'freedom' or 'democracy' is I fear a false hope.

[billybong]

I think it's possible to make an argument that their policies of austerity are a consequence of their policy of expansion (for example since 1975 expanding from 9 countries to 27 countries) and if that expansion hadn't been facilitated by massive and dodgy debt along with crooked accounting then the austerity (in some cases so called austerity) wouldn't have even been contemplated.

A lot of UK problems have come about because of the eu's expansion which has never been voted on by the UK people and although there hasn't been war within the nine 1975 Common Market members apparently there have been about 30 official wars within europe since 1975 plus wars involving the eu outside of europe (involved to various extents) and which all contribute to the problem of mass migration of people towards the eu and then on to the UK.

For sure the 2015 eu is a completely different entity to the 1975 Common Market even though there hasn't been an updated booklet/pamphlet explaining what the new aims are. Maybe they'll distribute an updated booklet listing and explaining the point of the eu when the UK has the (belated) referendum on it.

Edited August 9, 2015 by billybong

[wonderpup]

The question in the OP is meaningless. Organisations are like living creatures, they don't exist because they have a 'point', they exist because they are able to perpetuate themselves.

What is the point of the UK?

I think you are right- any organisation once created will place it's own survival ahead of any official aims and objectives it may supposedly have.

But an essential part of that survival strategy is the ability of such organisations to justify their existence in terms of the benefits they bring not just to themselves but to others- and I think the EU is now at the point where there are no compelling arguments to be made that it should continue- the financial crisis of 2008 was the test of it's utility- a test it has failed dismally.

The inability of the EU to mount an intelligent and decisive response to the issues in Greece- a nation of 11 million people representing 2% of EU GDP- is a perfect example of how feeble and flawed the EU construct is. How is it even possible that five years after the crisis in Greece arose there is still no end in sight?

Then we have the issue of illegal migrants- and again the EU fails to mount a coherent response.

Ironically about the only pan European issue the EU did manage to agree on recently was the need to bring down the elected government of Greece- and even then they failed to achieve their aim of installing a puppet EU government of 'technocrats'- so they can't even run an effective coup d'etat.

[Guest TheBlueCat]

It's to spread "progressive values" (whatever they may be) in a way that makes it impossible for voters to challenge the policy at the ballot box.

[erat_forte]

Of course it is, the UK is just a 300 year old mini-EU.

Yes quite, and England is a 1200 year old artificial union between Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria. All state and quasi-state organisations are pretty arbitrary, all exist only to propogate themselves, they do this by bribing some people to align those peoples interests with the states. Then war, military or economic, weeds out which states fail and which take over the territories of the failures.

[Grayphil]

Sadly I feel your faith in the EU as regards this matter is misplaced- we are talking about an entity that cannot muster a coherent response to the issue of migrants crossing it's southern borders, so the idea that it could present a united front in the face of potential conflict in the east is I think optimistic to say the least.

Greece is a full member of the EU and look what they are doing to the Greeks. It's all about money I'm sad to say- that's the only 'value' the EU now seems to be able to agree on- anything else is simply not on their radar- so looking to the EU to defend such non profitable things like 'freedom' or 'democracy' is I fear a false hope.

I can understand where your thoughts come from, but do you really think it is easy to stop illegal immigrants??? really think about that for a second, now Britain is an island protected by a cold sea... that makes a huge difference and you still have huge problems at calais.....I recently crossed the border into russia via a forest.... guess what, nobody is there to see......

Greece lied to get into the EU about its true fiscal position and now is paying the consequences, I also live in a country that suffered massive Austerity after borrowing beyond its means, but we made it though and are now growing at a great pace.... I presume you live in the UK, why are you happy that Greeks can retire 10 years before you??? its not cruelty to the greeks, its common sense.

[wonderpup]

I can understand where your thoughts come from, but do you really think it is easy to stop illegal immigrants??? really think about that for a second, now Britain is an island protected by a cold sea... that makes a huge difference and you still have huge problems at calais.....I recently crossed the border into russia via a forest.... guess what, nobody is there to see......

Greece lied to get into the EU about its true fiscal position and now is paying the consequences, I also live in a country that suffered massive Austerity after borrowing beyond its means, but we made it though and are now growing at a great pace.... I presume you live in the UK, why are you happy that Greeks can retire 10 years before you??? its not cruelty to the greeks, its common sense.

I wasn't suggesting that the immigrants be stopped-only that the EU should be capable of dealing with them and the problems they create in a unified manner- which they have proved incapable of doing- so it's left to Greece, for example, to handle the situation without any EU wide strategy backing them up, which is a complete joke.

You are correct that Greece was a corrupt state and probably should never have joined the Euro or even the EU- but I'm afraid that simply pointing fingers and casting blame- the current EU strategy- does not represent the kind of intelligent response that we might have hoped from the leaders of Europe- they are supposed to be better than that- but they are not.

The failure of the EU to resolve the Greek crisis is a massive failure of political will and competence on the part of the EU and provides a vivid example of the inability of the EU to act in a decisive and coherent manner.

Lets face it, if the EU cannot deal with a tiny place like Greece with a population of 11 million what chance is there that they could handle a real crisis of any sort?

[MarkG]

I used to know the answer to this question- it was to promote peace and prosperity in a united Europe- to me this was self evident and I was strongly in favor of the EU and all it's works.

Why am I not surprised that you fell for the EU claptrap?

I think the EU was firstly to stop war within Europe, think how many lives have been lost in 100 years.........

The EU didn't stop war in Europe. Quarter of million American troops with nukes, and an existential threat from the Soviet Union did that.

[Killer Bunny]

That's the basic answer, but you can add in a few factors as to how they are able to perpetuate themselves.

Most people have no idea what the EU is up to. Amusingly, its current (economically Thatcherite) direction is probably exactly the opposite of what it's most ardent supporters actually think.

I have read blogs by Italians saying things like "how would we cope on our own outside the EU?" Weird. Scary.

EU is Thatchetite.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Beyond funny.

[wonderpup]

Why am I not surprised that you fell for the EU claptrap?

To be fair I was not the only one- most of continental Europe bought into the idea of a unified European super state- hence the EU.

The problem was that underpinning the project were a set of Neo liberal economic fantasies that imploded on contact with the reality of the 2008 banking crisis- it turned out markets were neither stable or rational after all.

The reason that the project-in particular the Euro- is now unravelling is because it's design parameters simply did not include the possibility of such a serious crisis- the premise was that such a crisis was impossible given the inherent equilibrium seeking nature of free market capitalism.

Of course these assumptions only became apparent when they failed. In a sense the Euro is a victim of a fashion in economic thinking that happened to be ascendant at the time of it's inception which led to a wildly optimistic view of both it's likely success and the extents of any problems it was likely to encounter- it's as if the single currency were a ship designed by someone who was convinced that a storm at sea was theoretically impossible- and so planned accordingly.

What we see now is the unedifying spectacle of the weakest onboard being thrown over the side in a doomed attempt to keep that ship afloat- though Greece is still hanging in there at present.

[wonderpup]

EU is Thatchetite.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Beyond funny.

Perhaps not in it's politics-but in it's economic theology it does subscribe to a lot of Thatcher's ideas- what could be more Thatcherite than the doctrine of austerity? And like Thatcher the EU does share her simplistic notion that a national economy is analogous to a household that must at all times 'balance it's books'.

So strange as it may seem I think that Thatcher would find a lot to approve of in the economic predilections of the EU- despite her opposition to their expansionist aspirations.

[SpectrumFX]

To be fair I was not the only one- most of continental Europe bought into the idea of a unified European super state- hence the EU.

The problem was that underpinning the project were a set of Neo liberal economic fantasies that imploded on contact with the reality of the 2008 banking crisis- it turned out markets were neither stable or rational after all.

The reason that the project-in particular the Euro- is now unravelling is because it's design parameters simply did not include the possibility of such a serious crisis- the premise was that such a crisis was impossible given the inherent equilibrium seeking nature of free market capitalism.

Of course these assumptions only became apparent when they failed. In a sense the Euro is a victim of a fashion in economic thinking that happened to be ascendant at the time of it's inception which led to a wildly optimistic view of both it's likely success and the extents of any problems it was likely to encounter- it's as if the single currency were a ship designed by someone who was convinced that a storm at sea was theoretically impossible- and so planned accordingly.

What we see now is the unedifying spectacle of the weakest onboard being thrown over the side in a doomed attempt to keep that ship afloat- though Greece is still hanging in there at present.

The thing that makes free markets work better than any other system we've tried is that sh1t that doesn't work is allowed to fail.

The ongoing implosion of the EU economy is the result of interfering to prevent failure. Each time they do it they forestall the pain, but push further towards total systemic failure.

[SpewLabour]

What crock.

The EU is Communism incarnate.

NATO kept peace in Europe. EU is a warmonger. Like all Socialist autocracies.

+1

[oracle]

To be fair I was not the only one- most of continental Europe bought into the idea of a unified European super state- hence the EU.

The problem was that underpinning the project were a set of Neo liberal economic fantasies that imploded on contact with the reality of the 2008 banking crisis- it turned out markets were neither stable or rational after all.

The reason that the project-in particular the Euro- is now unravelling is because it's design parameters simply did not include the possibility of such a serious crisis- the premise was that such a crisis was impossible given the inherent equilibrium seeking nature of free market capitalism.

beg to differ.

there are 2 reasons why it has failed.

1)it has been built on coercion, not consent.

2) the "leaders" suffer from "omnipotent caesar" syndrom.....that they are emperor, and everybody else is an ignorant peasant.

peter mandelsohn says democracy has failed..he is wrong.

it is because the democratically elected representatives(notice I do not say leaders), have not either done as they were instructed by their electors,nor have they been properly held to account for not doing as they were told.

europe now really has two choices.choose between:

1)bring the transgressors to book and reform on a proper agreed by the people constituion,with VERY strict remits on what elected officials can and cannot do.

2)get the omnipotent casear,suffer tyranny for a short time until the people get so utterly fed up they overthrow ceasar ceaucescu style.

unfortunately the history of europe (especially central and southern europe),suggests the latter.

despotism has been the default postion in most of the countries only up until recently.

Edited August 9, 2015 by oracle

[wonderpup]

The thing that makes free markets work better than any other system we've tried is that sh1t that doesn't work is allowed to fail.

The ongoing implosion of the EU economy is the result of interfering to prevent failure. Each time they do it they forestall the pain, but push further towards total systemic failure.

True- but it's the Eurozones inability to tolerate a major market failure that made the intervention inevitable. A more robust system might have been ok- but the thing was built by people who believed that markets were inherently stable because that was the prevailing economic theology of the period.

The problem is not so much in free markets themselves but in the Neo Liberal model of them that makes incorrect assumptions about the systems ability to vary significantly from the status quo.

A good example of the magnitude of error involved is the fact that according to the models used by Goldman Sachs the probability of a nationwide HPC across the US was so unlikely to occur that the odds against it were described by a number so high that it exceeded the calculated number of particles in the known universe- yet in 2008 such a nationwide crash in prices did indeed occur.

So the mathematical models used to calculate risk prior to 2008 were not just wrong, they were wrong to a degree that ought not to be humanly possible- but it was these kinds of models that were used by the people implementing the Euro- so it's not surprising that they failed to capture the possibility that something as big as the 2008 meltdown might be even possible- their models told them that such a meltdown was to all practical purposes impossible.

[wonderpup]

beg to differ.

there are 2 reasons why it has failed.

1)it has been built on coercion, not consent.

2) the "leaders" suffer from "omnipotent caesar" syndrom.....that they are emperor, and everybody else is an ignorant peasant.

peter mandelsohn says democracy has failed..he is wrong.

it is because the democratically elected representatives(notice I do not say leaders), have not either done as they were instructed by their electors,nor have they been properly held to account for not doing as they were told.

europe now really has two choices.choose between:

1)bring the transgressors to book and reform on a proper agreed by the people constituion,with VERY strict remits on what elected officials can and cannot do.

2)get the omnipotent casear,suffer tyranny for a short time until the people get so utterly fed up they overthrow ceasar ceaucescu style.

unfortunately the history of europe (especially central and southern europe),suggests the latter.

despotism has been the default postion in most of the countries only up until recently.

I think you are right about the inherently undemocratic nature of the EU-after all it seeks to replace the democratically elected governments of Europe with it's own apparatus, so it could hardly be anything but anti democratic.

But this innate bias was not the cause of the current crisis, which has it's roots in the flawed design of the Euro. What the crisis has done is make explicit this anti democratic bias by forcing the hand of the EU elites in ways that are hard to conceal- for example when the head of the Eurogroup openly states that as an 'as hoc' body the group can do anything it likes he is-without perhaps realizing it- making it very clear that the EU is an accountability free zone in which even elected officials can operate with little or no oversight.

When you have high ranking EU officials openly calling for the replacement of the legally elected Government of Greece by a 'technocratic' leadership under the control of the EU the cat is probably exiting the bag- short of sending tanks into Athens it's hard to see what more the EU could have done to bring down the Greek Government- a Government they identified as an ideological competitor and one they dearly wanted to crush.

I will vote to leave the EU in the referendum because it no longer represents the values or principles it was created to defend and has in effect become little more than a gloryfied debt enforcer on behalf of the financial sector.

[stormymonday_2011]

Yes quite, and England is a 1200 year old artificial union between Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria. All state and quasi-state organisations are pretty arbitrary, all exist only to propogate themselves, they do this by bribing some people to align those peoples interests with the states. Then war, military or economic, weeds out which states fail and which take over the territories of the failures.

Some states and political organizations are more enduring than others for various reasons. China has often descended into anarchy but has a long history of re-merging as a coherent political unit. The problem for the EU is that for all the Charlemagne prizes etc dished out by Brussels the only successful long term pan-European government was the Roman Empire which was actually based around the Mediterranean and did not include half the continental territories that make up the modern EU. In fact the EU has much more in common with that medieval concept the Holy Roman Empire which like it's modern counterpart looked much better on paper than it did in reality. Trying to create a superstates out of nation states with divergent languages, cultures, political histories, economies and even alphabets etc was always a tough ask. Like most illusions it worked as long as no one looked too closely at was going on. The real problems started when the attempt was made to convert the Potemkin fantasy into something more concrete by creating a common currency in the Euro. Once that happened it was only a matter of time before the flaws started to become apparent. The financial crisis of 2008 just ruthlessly exposed the wishful thinking behind the whole enterprise.

At core the EUs failing is that it lacks any real political coherence. For all the treaties, European Parliaments, Councils of Ministers etc it does not really operate as a single political unit. Possibly the simplest example is the absence of any meaningful defence or foreign policy. For all the huffing and puffing by Brussels this role is still being performed by individual nation states some of which, such as Britain and France, are willing to resort to arms while others such as Ireland and Sweden try to maintain their historic position of neutrality which means that they essentially are going to be reluctant to join any conflicts (a point which any eastern European countries who have joined the EU as a defence against Russian aggression ought to note). Simply hoping that declaring an economic union and a single currency would wipe out those political differences was doomed to disappointment.

Anyway the most obvious and probably truest answer to the question - why was the EU created ? - is because the French wanted to bind the Germans to them in such a way that German armies would not cross the Rhine as they did in 1870,1914 and 1940. This is the only European war it was designed to stop. All the rest of the prattle about preventing wider conflict is probably meaningless post fact justification.

Edited August 9, 2015 by stormymonday_2011

[Meerkat]

And like Thatcher the EU does share her simplistic notion that a national economy is analogous to a household that must at all times 'balance it's books'.

Clearly you have plenty of evidence where fiscal largesse has delivered? Check the real life and you will find pitiful cesspit filled with failures. And vice versa, can you name examples of where fiscally responsible (and fiscally responsible is a synonym to being responsible towards humanity) countries have been devastated/lagged? No, all of them that I can recollect are countries with the highest standards of living globally. That Thatcher was sane in some ways does not imply that any idea that is sane is Thatcherite. Sanity is a way more non-transient phenomenon. Get your reasoning clear.

[Executive Sadman]

The question in the OP is meaningless. Organisations are like living creatures, they don't exist because they have a 'point', they exist because they are able to perpetuate themselves.

What is the point of the UK?

I would kind of hope to promote and ensure continuation of the rule of law and secular(ish) values.

Immigration of alien cultures has somewhat undermined that, I guess we are in a managed decline now, but if you think there is no point to that, why even live here?

edit: assuming you do...if you live somewhere else, fair enough.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Executive Sadman

[SpectrumFX]

True- but it's the Eurozones inability to tolerate a major market failure that made the intervention inevitable. A more robust system might have been ok- but the thing was built by people who believed that markets were inherently stable because that was the prevailing economic theology of the period.

The problem is not so much in free markets themselves but in the Neo Liberal model of them that makes incorrect assumptions about the systems ability to vary significantly from the status quo.

A good example of the magnitude of error involved is the fact that according to the models used by Goldman Sachs the probability of a nationwide HPC across the US was so unlikely to occur that the odds against it were described by a number so high that it exceeded the calculated number of particles in the known universe- yet in 2008 such a nationwide crash in prices did indeed occur.

So the mathematical models used to calculate risk prior to 2008 were not just wrong, they were wrong to a degree that ought not to be humanly possible- but it was these kinds of models that were used by the people implementing the Euro- so it's not surprising that they failed to capture the possibility that something as big as the 2008 meltdown might be even possible- their models told them that such a meltdown was to all practical purposes impossible.

The issue is a political ideology that seeks to preserve the status quo at all costs, and is prepared to follow an interventionist policy to maintain that "stability".

If you keep at it you end up with the state running all of the "failed" industries, right up to the point that you get a failed state.

I'm not a great fan of Reagan, but I've always liked his quote about the government and tax;

"If it Moves, Tax it. If it Keeps Moving, Regulate it. And if it Stops Moving, Subsidize it."

Edit to add: and of course the other famous one; "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

Edited August 10, 2015 by SpectrumFX

[Riedquat]

Thus we get the ongoing 'austerity' cult which requires it's adherents to accept the absurd proposition that it's somehow possible to increase your prosperity by slashing your wages and social welfare systems in order to become more 'competitive'

Yet if it really were possible to become prosperous via this route why then is Ethiopia not currently an economic superpower?

What ends superpowers is spending beyond their means. You certainly don't increase your prosperity other than in the short term with a plan of continual overspending. And indeed this may well be exactly what's happening to the EU.

You get more prosperous by striking the right balance, by making the best use of the resources you've got (although even that can be a stupid idea - the ruthless pursuit of wealth and prosperity certainly isn't making a happier, pleasanter world to live in).

[billybong]

Whatever the eu's general point it doesn't seem to have had much point economically for the UK with the UK's GDP per capita falling behind the other 9 Common Market members since the vote of 1975 - except Italy is still lower. There seems to be no point at least in per capita terms.

Even the special relationship with the US seems to have been a failure in economic terms with the UK's Gdp per capita about 30% lower than that of the US. There seems to be no particularly special relationship economically at least in per capita terms.

Edited August 10, 2015 by billybong

[billybong]

When it comes to the referendum there'll be 2 main issues - on the economy which is usually the main factor

1. Has it worked for the UK. Seems that the answer is No.

2. Will it work for the UK in future. Seems that the answer is No.

Based on the UK's continued relative decline since the Common Market vote in 1975 and the lessons to be learnt from recent events including those in Greece etc.

Edited August 10, 2015 by billybong