How do you think about your countries behavior in the EU? (States behavior in the Union)

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Recently I've been reading some news about the upcomming meeting in the EU, once again we will be talking about important issues such as how we want to spend the money we direct to the---- NO!.

No we will not. As of now it seems my own and several other countries are currently going there with only one goal in mind, paying as much as a select few nations whom have gotten special deals.

Yousee as of now, certain countries. England, Sweeden and Netherlands (They pay 3 everytime other countries pays 4, without mentioning specific ammounts) comes to mind. Actually pay less than everyone else. In my mind if that were the case that would mean that they would discuss raising them up to pay the exact ammount everyone else does, but no. Thats not an issue, everyone else wants to pay as little as they do. And the ammount of time dedicated to this, is so much. That it will push other, far more important issues aside so that the different financial cabinets or whatever can duke it out with eachother to decide who's 1 seventh of a billion dollars is worth more.

But actually this thread isnt about that, this thread is more of a general thread.

How do you think about your countries behavior in the Union? Do you think they should be more selfish or less? Give reasons. My viewpoint is pretty obvious from the rant.

(Alternatively if the Americans wanna join in)

We will translate it to State Representatives behavior. Pretty much the same question but on a smaller scale as the US is quite different.

its looking increasingly like England (or rather the UK) is possibly gonna end up either leaving or being flung out.

atm all we are doing and all we will continue to do (given "dave" virtually removed Britain from "being in the room" in terms of having any meaningful input into the future shape of Europe do you the use of his "veto that wasn't") is being the disruptive boy in class that most of the more srs kids in class would probably all rather like to see to see the back of.

while that might sound great to the more predominantly "eurosceptic" and right wing English its bizarre to note that in Scotland atm the threat of potentially not being in the EU post Scottish independence is being flung around up her by the same (UK) "unionist" political parties...which tbth kinda highlights the disdain which which they view the Scottish electorate because its like they are blindsiding the fact that we also get to view the media from the rest of the UK and their bizarrely inconsistent politicking on "the European question" depending on where to to whom they are speaking...in short it's becoming clearer and clearer as time and momentum builds towards the UK as a whole leaving that actually by the time 2014 comes around it could well be the case that Scotlands best bet for remaining in the EU would be to leave the UK and then reapply for entry to the EU on its bloody own...

as for the UK as a whole the tory party and post new labour labour party (who are torys as well most of the time) have long been flirting with the right wing "eurosceptism" and blaming masses of multitudes of supposed (and often often invented) problems and what used to be cursed as "the bloody health and safety" on "Europe" for decades now for the sake of domestic political gain and slight of hand but the cold hard economic truth is that Britain (and especially the ever loved "city") is far better in than out and that's why anyone who actually ends up running the country generally has a really hard time squaring off their domestic political pandering with the naked reality of what is actually required when you're supposed to be running the country in its best interests.

well the chickens have almost come home to roost.

if anyone thinks the UK is economically fucked now (hey its only our triple dip recession at this point, why stop there ? :\ ) just wait til we pull out the EU...

Nikolaz72:
as the US is quite different.

not nearly as different as you (or many others) think.

"federalism" is quite flexible and can be applied to varying degrees while at the same time guaranteeing "states rights" aka "state sovereignty" in a multitude of areas.

the ideal solution for the EU is blindingly obvious to anyone with a brain: an over arching light federal structure on top cooperating on those issues which it makes sense to be cooperative, a core zone of monetary and fiscal union, and an outer buffer zone of nations who wish to be in the trade bloc alone at the present time (WHICH BTW MEANS YOU'LL STILL BE SUBJECT TO ALL THE DAILY MAIL "STRAIGHT BANANAS" BULLSHIT STORIES BECAUSE ALL THOSE STORYS RELATE TO TRADE LEGISLATION THAT FACILITATE "FREE" AND PAPERLESS CROSS BORDER TRADE WITHIN THE TRADE BLOC) and the ability to move between the two zones as politically expedient.

BUT at this point modern torys who have grown up believing the hype are now even talking about pulling out of European things that clearly benefit the people of Britain like the European agreements on cross border European policing, the ECHR via the Human Rights Act which although a bad new labour led incorporation into UK law (you kinda have to understand just how many new labourites where lawyers to figure out why...) is still a good thing because its pretty much the only written statement of rights we have as British citizens (torys have always hated Human rights and European Court of Human Rights because it has historically been used to stop them doing what they think they should be able to do which is whatever the hell they like regardless of anyone else's outside opinion on pesky inconvenient things like basic morality or ethics...) the and ofc all the (pretty basic tbth) continental "labour laws" that stop them enacting their wildest dreams of serfdom for us all...

but hey you go for it England...
you'll probably be doing it on your own tho...

feel free to get back to me on that whole fantasy "well be like a nuclear armed Switzerland and trade with the empire and colonies" thing you have going on when you finally realise the geopolitical entity with the largest GDP and market on the planet (even without you and in its current limping economic state) is right next door and very possibly a hostile competitor and when you find out why those paparazzi snapped goverment memos being carried in by ministers outside number 10 just prior to "daves" "veto that wasn't" meeting had "KEEP THE CITY WITHIN EUROPE" written on them in black marker at the top of the front page hmmm...

Sleekit:
Snip

I read a while back an article on the future of the EU, and one of the few things I actually remember is, that the writer (the writer is a Professor on European politics) was convinced that PM Cameron is planing a referendum on a 100 exceptions that doesn't matter.

That way Cameron could satisfy the very eurosceptic part of the conservative party, without damaging UK's membership.

On topic:

Denmark have 3 major exceptions 1)the Euro's 3rd phase (the actually currency), 2)Common Security and Defence Policy and 3)police and justice. Well there is a 4th but the EU dropped the plans on making a "EU citizenship" it's not actually an exception. We got these because we voted no on the Maastricht Treaty.

I strongly disagree with all of them even though I would like to wait regarding the Euro.

Nikolaz72:

Yousee as of now, certain countries. England, Sweeden and Netherlands (They pay 3 everytime other countries pays 4, without mentioning specific ammounts) comes to mind.

Assuming Sweden and the Netherlands are in the same situation as the UK, they pay less because due to what the EU spends money on, they get such a tiny amount back.

The UK gets a much commented on "rebate", where it pays a load of money to the EU, and the EU hands a substantial amount of it straight back. And yet even despite getting the rebate back, the UK still contributes more money to the EU budget than it receives.

Normally, I wouldn't mind, if that money was used well. But the fact is that the EU has for long been using the incomes of rich northern European countries to subsidise the inefficiency of the poorer ones, who have had the votes to push it through. Much via the Common Agricultural Policy.

Whilst such dissatisfaction exists with how the EU spends its money, and given the EU's incompetent handling of the current economic crisis, it is phenomenally hard to expect countries that already more than pay their way to hand over even more to an organisation that seems to be at minimum somewhat dysfunctional. And I say this as a pro-European, as hard as the EU makes it for me to be.

Agema:
IM DISPLEASED WITH HOW THEY USE THE MONEY

Which is the exact reason they shouldnt spend the entire VERY IMPORTANT MEETING on a buttload of country wanting to spend as little money as the guy paying least..

But should instead, youknow.. Spend the meeting talking about how to become more efficient, what the meeting should actually be about, becomming more efficient.. Atm more and more of it seems to become dedicated towards countries whom want to pay as little a percentage as the guys who pay the least. Which, least to say. Sucks balls.

My country isn't in the EU, and the states in it mostly get along.

One notable area of contention is over water, we have a river that passes through several states, so people taking water for irrigation in one states means less for the people in other states downstream. Doesn't help when we've got farmers growing crops that use lots of water in a region where there isn't much.

Hmmm why not start with Denmark? they are the biggest "opt-out" state in the union, they've opted out of the 4 main areas in the union, including the EMU.
That said after Germany the UK gives the most money to the Union, and one of the few countries that does not "get" any money from it via the EU budget-revenue stream.
Although all of these countries pay less as you say, they are actually giving more money to the EU than most nations, and not getting money from it unlike many countries(especially the new "poor" ones, and for some reason Luxemburg which gets over 3bln a year from the EU).

Verbatim:
the EMU.

The Euro, now the EMU... can't you mob name things after your own animals instead of stealing ours?

RhombusHatesYou:

Verbatim:
the EMU.

The Euro, now the EMU... can't you mob name things after your own animals instead of stealing ours?

took me couple of seconds to figure that out, but that was truly clever, kudos for the laugh mate.

Nikolaz72:

Agema:
IM DISPLEASED WITH HOW THEY USE THE MONEY

Which is the exact reason they shouldnt spend the entire VERY IMPORTANT MEETING on a buttload of country wanting to spend as little money as the guy paying least...

I'm displeased with much more than how they spend the money.

And I think what I'm really displeased with is the reason they don't spend the money very well.

The set-up of the EU is dreadful: sclerotic, probably corrupt, and ineffectual. How much various parties pay is really just one facet of every last damn one of them trying to fix shit up with an eye to their best interest than the whole. It's also how and where payments go out, how decisions are made, how the EU and it's institutions are perpetually hobbled by national interests in vetos and intransigence, and so on. How the ECB runs Euro monetary policy just to keep Germany sweet, and everyone else can just lump it, etc.

Until it sorts this shit out, it should not running around asking member states for more money.

Nikolaz72:
England, Sweeden and Netherlands (They pay 3 everytime other countries pays 4, without mentioning specific ammounts) comes to mind. Actually pay less than everyone else. In my mind that would mean that they would discuss raising them up to pay the exact ammount everyone else does, but no. Thats not an issue, everyone else wants to pay as little as they do.

What? The Dutch don't pay enough?!

Along with Sweden, Germany and Austria, the Netherlands is one of the EU's biggest net contributors. Per capita, the Dutch pay much more than other member states with a similar level of prosperity.

http://www.government.nl/issues/european-economic-and-monetary-policy/dutch-financial-contribution-to-the-european-union

We act like complete fucking morons (UK). Our politicians seem to want it both ways - they want the trade of the EU, but don't want to listen to most of the legislation or pay slightly more.

What we really need is a referendum for a closer EU, and more accountability & traceability. The only feasible way of doing this is having a two-tier system of Europe, where states opting out remain in the current system, and states that opt in share a lot more decisions.

Verbatim:
Hmmm why not start with Denmark? they are the biggest "opt-out" state in the union, they've opted out of the 4 main areas in the union, including the EMU.
That said after Germany the UK gives the most money to the Union, and one of the few countries that does not "get" any money from it via the EU budget-revenue stream.
Although all of these countries pay less as you say, they are actually giving more money to the EU than most nations, and not getting money from it unlike many countries(especially the new "poor" ones, and for some reason Luxemburg which gets over 3bln a year from the EU).

You're supposed to add something like (On Topic) after the off-topic.

From this and former posts though I dont think you actually know a whole lot about the EU to begin with. So I'll let it slide.

Additionaly, with all the smaller nations in the union looking at actual numbers doesnt show a whole lot. If America was in the EU (Bad example but whatever) even if it paid 1/10.000th of Estland it would still pay 'more'.

IIRC, the reason Britain gets a rebate is because the things that the money is usually spent on don't tend to benefit us as much as they benefit other countries, so we pay less in to compensate for getting less benefit. That said, I am sick and tired of the Euroscepticism everywhere in this country. We're all in the shit, and bickering and vetoing any potential solution because it might affect Cameron's chums in London isn't sodding helping.

Our news people love to use the EU when they're on an evil Obama socialism rag, but we're not really involved so...yea.

Agema:

Nikolaz72:

Agema:
IM DISPLEASED WITH HOW THEY USE THE MONEY

Which is the exact reason they shouldnt spend the entire VERY IMPORTANT MEETING on a buttload of country wanting to spend as little money as the guy paying least...

I'm displeased with much more than how they spend the money.

And I think what I'm really displeased with is the reason they don't spend the money very well.

The set-up of the EU is dreadful: sclerotic, probably corrupt, and ineffectual. How much various parties pay is really just one facet of every last damn one of them trying to fix shit up with an eye to their best interest than the whole. It's also how and where payments go out, how decisions are made, how the EU and it's institutions are perpetually hobbled by national interests in vetos and intransigence, and so on. How the ECB runs Euro monetary policy just to keep Germany sweet, and everyone else can just lump it, etc.

Until it sorts this shit out, it should not running around asking member states for more money.

You do realise that most of the arguments you're making apply equally to the British civil service, right? Glass houses mate, glass houses.

Oh, Florida *sigh*.

That's really all that needs to be said. The staggering amount of batshit insane news stories has me convinced that when a place reaches a certain mix of northerners and southerners, it just turns into a writhing ball of crazy.

Also, Texas. Nice people from what I've seen. Could never live there. Any state that elects Louie Gohmert(the man apologized to BP chairman after the oil spill for what he said was a "shakedown" for wanting to fine the company that polluted an area for decades) is absolutely no place for me.

Texas politicians support awful bills at the national level and the Texas state government had to be forced to legalize homosexual relations by the supreme court less than a decade ago.

Texas is terrible. The only redeeming qualities of the state are lax gun regulations and beautiful landscape.

Without the tempering hand of the national government, Texas would be third world. There is not a single doubt in my mind about that.

I think it's unreasonable of the Commission and Parliament to ask for a budget rise from it's Member States when such states themselves are in the midst of austerity. Spending money may be what we need to get growth going again in Europe, but the EU's sending out the wrong kind of messages asking states for more money in these times. It would be better diverting funds from CAP towards the EU cohesion fund instead

Cameron's position is at least just as unreasonable as the EU's though. He's already vetoed the Tobin tax and now he's threatening to veto any rise in the EU budget. He's hardly contributed anything constructive to the EU, which has really damaged Britain's reputation in Europe. Granted that position was forced on him by a parliamentary vote, but that parliamentary vote isn't binding- and everyone knows it only passed because Labour wanted to defeat in him on a commons vote. Really, he should ally himself with Merkel's far more reasonable position and push for a minimalist increase in the budget.

I don't think Cameron himself is a committed Eurosceptic- he believes that Britain's better in the EU that out of it even if he's not overly keen on the European Project itself, but a lot of people in his party want out of the union and he's effectively forced to peddle their agenda and use all the rhetoric about putting Britain first and vetoing anything that vaguely threatens Britain's national interest. I think he's a Euro-sceptic puppet essentially, and i can't wait to see the day when he's out of Downing Street and we have a prime minister who actually does something useful and positive for Europe.

Magichead:

You do realise that most of the arguments you're making apply equally to the British civil service, right? Glass houses mate, glass houses.

They certainly apply (as they do in virtually all organisations: government, corporate, charity, religious, etc.), but not equally. It is perfectly reasonable to decide that whilst corruption may exist in two entities, the degree of corruption in one compared to other merits different treatment of the two.

I generally don't care much about how my state's representatives/senators act in Congress since I don't feel like I "own" them as my representatives. I live in a state so red it doesn't need to be gerrymandered, thus almost no real representation for people like me, which leads to far less interest in the affairs of state politics.

Though, I do find EU politics interesting due to its trials and tribulations figuring out what kind of federalism it wants to be.

Nikolaz72:

Verbatim:
Hmmm why not start with Denmark? they are the biggest "opt-out" state in the union, they've opted out of the 4 main areas in the union, including the EMU.
That said after Germany the UK gives the most money to the Union, and one of the few countries that does not "get" any money from it via the EU budget-revenue stream.
Although all of these countries pay less as you say, they are actually giving more money to the EU than most nations, and not getting money from it unlike many countries(especially the new "poor" ones, and for some reason Luxemburg which gets over 3bln a year from the EU).

You're supposed to add something like (On Topic) after the off-topic.

From this and former posts though I dont think you actually know a whole lot about the EU to begin with. So I'll let it slide.

Additionaly, with all the smaller nations in the union looking at actual numbers doesnt show a whole lot. If America was in the EU (Bad example but whatever) even if it paid 1/10.000th of Estland it would still pay 'more'.

It seems that you actually don't know how the EU funding works, BTW Germany and Austria enjoy the same reduced VAT call rates as does Sweden and the Netherlands, the UK actually still pays the "same" as you would call it as the other countries, it did get a rebate due to the fact that it payed considerably more than it should have in previous years.
I think you should go and learn how the EU budget actually works before you start criticizing countries.

Verbatim:

Nikolaz72:

Verbatim:
Hmmm why not start with Denmark? they are the biggest "opt-out" state in the union, they've opted out of the 4 main areas in the union, including the EMU.
That said after Germany the UK gives the most money to the Union, and one of the few countries that does not "get" any money from it via the EU budget-revenue stream.
Although all of these countries pay less as you say, they are actually giving more money to the EU than most nations, and not getting money from it unlike many countries(especially the new "poor" ones, and for some reason Luxemburg which gets over 3bln a year from the EU).

You're supposed to add something like (On Topic) after the off-topic.

From this and former posts though I dont think you actually know a whole lot about the EU to begin with. So I'll let it slide.

Additionaly, with all the smaller nations in the union looking at actual numbers doesnt show a whole lot. If America was in the EU (Bad example but whatever) even if it paid 1/10.000th of Estland it would still pay 'more'.

It seems that you actually don't know how the EU funding works, BTW Germany and Austria enjoy the same reduced VAT call rates as does Sweden and the Netherlands, the UK actually still pays the "same" as you would call it as the other countries, it did get a rebate due to the fact that it payed considerably more than it should have in previous years.
I think you should go and learn how the EU budget actually works before you start criticizing countries.

Actually you have shown in the past to have a specific lack of knowledge when it comes to Europe. Im pretty confident in mine, what with focusing on it and all. Oh, and living there. Also, this is not what this thread is about. You are pretty much taking it off topic, putting words in my mouth, and not contributing anything relevant to the thread (Follow thread's guidelines). I certainly wish it was against the rules so I could report for it but im not really certain.

Agema:

Magichead:

You do realise that most of the arguments you're making apply equally to the British civil service, right? Glass houses mate, glass houses.

They certainly apply (as they do in virtually all organisations: government, corporate, charity, religious, etc.), but not equally. It is perfectly reasonable to decide that whilst corruption may exist in two entities, the degree of corruption in one compared to other merits different treatment of the two.

while the EU undoubtedly needs reform the effects of the current UK governments handling of Europe is increasing placing us "not in the room".

tbth i don't think daily mail spoon fed next gen torys like marketing man "what's trending on twitter this week so i can make a statement ?" cameron are anywhere near up to the big picture high brow politics that are needed to shape a better Europe Union.

he goes to Europe with a frankly inane tabloid complaint about how many Brussels bureaucrats are earning over 100k a year under his arm not a game changing leadership proposal for a future meeting on a whole new constitution and/or two tier federal union or anything like that and yet that's what Europe needs but it'll never come out of Britain nor will Britain ever even support such a thing because the eurosceptics will have brain hemorrhages before they "allow" the creation of the European "superstate" that actually needs to, and imo is undoubtedly going to, happen.

as it is (after his "veto") the Euro zone countries are probably going to end up doing it on their own one way or another because its becoming quite clear that cameron is indeed "a lightweight" and Britains main diplomatic contribution at every turn is to deliberately throw a spanner in the works.

LetalisK:
Though, I do find EU politics interesting due to its trials and tribulations figuring out what kind of federalism it wants to be.

:)

the problem is the amount of time it takes (it's so bloody frustrating waiting for them to arrive at the somewhat obvious) but then the US wasn't born in a day either eh ?

it will happen eventually tho...i wouldn't but money on me still being alive when a fully rounded federal Europe does emerge but i'd put everything i have on it eventually happening.

Nikolaz72:

Verbatim:

Nikolaz72:
You're supposed to add something like (On Topic) after the off-topic.

From this and former posts though I dont think you actually know a whole lot about the EU to begin with. So I'll let it slide.

Additionaly, with all the smaller nations in the union looking at actual numbers doesnt show a whole lot. If America was in the EU (Bad example but whatever) even if it paid 1/10.000th of Estland it would still pay 'more'.

It seems that you actually don't know how the EU funding works, BTW Germany and Austria enjoy the same reduced VAT call rates as does Sweden and the Netherlands, the UK actually still pays the "same" as you would call it as the other countries, it did get a rebate due to the fact that it payed considerably more than it should have in previous years.
I think you should go and learn how the EU budget actually works before you start criticizing countries.

Actually you have shown in the past to have a specific lack of knowledge when it comes to Europe. Im pretty confident in mine, what with focusing on it and all. Oh, and living there. Also, this is not what this thread is about. You are pretty much taking it off topic, putting words in my mouth, and not contributing anything relevant to the thread (Follow thread's guidelines). I certainly wish it was against the rules so I could report for it but im not really certain.

Sorry spending my year going between Frankfurt and London does not count i guess.
Any how i suggest you read this before you continue with your claims. And considering I'm far from the only one who called you out on the same thing it's rather amusing that you tend to stick to me, I'm an EU citizen just as you, and i have a feeling that I've lived in far many more countries than you have ;).

Sleekit:
while the EU undoubtedly needs reform the effects of the current UK governments handling of Europe is increasing placing us "not in the room".

tbth i don't think daily mail spoon fed next gen torys like marketing man "what's trending on twitter this week so i can make an statement ?" cameron are anywhere near up to the big picture politics that's needed to shape a better Europe Union.

as it is (after his veto) the Euro zone countries are probably going to end up doing it on their own.

Don't get me started on that bunch of archaic-minded anti-EU toffs currently hawking their 1950s view of the world from the highest levels of the UK government.

The UK is more of a problem for the EU than most - if not all. It might potentially have been recently overtaken in the EU troublemaker stakes by the likes of Greece and perhaps Hungary, but those countries are at least giving the EU a headache due to side-effects of internal problems rather than deliberate intent.

Verbatim:
Sorry spending my year going between Frankfurt and London does not count i guess.

As a side note, just happening to be in a different location, no doubt suffering from having time taken up by other activities and tourist gaze indeed doesn't count, really.

When it comes to EU politics, its backgrounds and effects, entire books have been written on the subject. One can't expect to just wander around in a few cities, read some news headlines and expect to be able to understand what goes on.

Heck, some people currently at the EU budget's negotiations don't even understand what goes on, as demonstrated by David Cameron disqualifying himself from being taken seriously by threatening with a veto before they even sat down. You can be pretty sure nobody will be in a rush to take either Cameron or the UK seriously at EU agreements for some time.

By comparison: Dutch PM Rutte has been reported by insiders to already have had contact with Van Rompuy before the official talks between him, Barosso and the various PMs even started. As a result, the Dutch demands are going to set a certain tone before it's even begun.

Blablahb:

Verbatim:
Sorry spending my year going between Frankfurt and London does not count i guess.

As a side note, just happening to be in a different location, no doubt suffering from having time taken up by other activities and tourist gaze indeed doesn't count, really.

When it comes to EU politics, its backgrounds and effects, entire books have been written on the subject. One can't expect to just wander around in a few cities, read some news headlines and expect to be able to understand what goes on.

Heck, some people currently at the EU budget's negotiations don't even understand what goes on, as demonstrated by David Cameron disqualifying himself from being taken seriously by threatening with a veto before they even sat down. You can be pretty sure nobody will be in a rush to take either Cameron or the UK seriously at EU agreements for some time.

By comparison: Dutch PM Rutte has been reported by insiders to already have had contact with Van Rompuy before the official talks between him, Barosso and the various PMs even started. As a result, the Dutch demands are going to set a certain tone before it's even begun.

I'm hardly a tourist ;) but again i never said it does, it's just amused me that he claimed that if some one does not live in the EU knows less about it when the fact is that the common EU citizen would not even know who represents them in the parliament, not to mention how VAT call rates affect the relative contribution of members states with in the union.
It just amused me that he singles out several countries for the wrong reasons, claiming they pay less(while skipping other countries that also pay "less" like Germany and Austria), and while skipping his own opt-out country that didn't even signed the 'Area of freedom, security and justice' agreement.

Verbatim:
Snip

Cant wait to see examples.

Cant wait for you to reply to that one issue I raised to you which was quite important.

Cant wait for you to contribute your own piece to this thread.

As I doubt any of this is gonna happen, for now the discussion is over. Its filling up the entire page with... Something unrelated to the actual thread. Something you seem to excel at.

Sidenote: Sending a 250page PDF on European-Union financial papers from 2008 does 'not' count as an arguement. This is forum-101 but you dont seem to have an understanding for that yet. Its the same reason we dont leave empty threads with 45 minute video's using a sentence saying 'this guy explains my point perfectly, watch the video before replying'

Dont blame me if a trust a right-wing Israeli with dubious credentials less than the financial experts writing the papers I use for my monthly assignments. Its really nothing personal. I just happend to put trust in the people who say that theres an issue. And then I'll believe theres an issue until im proved wrong by someone with strong enough evidence, sources and points to prove them wrong.

*sigh*

Look, I appreciate you coming with sources. What I have been taught 'might' been wrong. What I see in the media, is most likely skewered. Politicians have a habit of lying in general. And I am totally reading through the 250 pages you sent, but I would appreciate it if you PM'd me what part you wished for me to read. Because I got my studies, and It just sorta threw me at the first page.

My country isn't the problem. It's people in it who can't, say, abide by the results of an election that are the idiots.

Nikolaz72:

Verbatim:
Snip

Cant wait to see examples.

Cant wait for you to reply to that one issue I raised to you which was quite important.

Cant wait for you to contribute your own piece to this thread.

As I doubt any of this is gonna happen, for now the discussion is over. Its filling up the entire page with... Something unrelated to the actual thread. Something you seem to excel at.

Sidenote: Sending a 250page PDF on European-Union financial papers from 2008 does 'not' count as an arguement. This is forum-101 but you dont seem to have an understanding for that yet. Its the same reason we dont leave empty threads with 45 minute video's using a sentence saying 'this guy explains my point perfectly, watch the video before replying'

Dont blame me if a trust a right-wing Israeli with dubious credentials less than the financial experts writing the papers I use for my monthly assignments. Its really nothing personal. I just happend to put trust in the people who say that theres an issue. And then I'll believe theres an issue until im proved wrong by someone with strong enough evidence, sources and points to prove them wrong.

*sigh*

Look, I appreciate you coming with sources. What I have been taught 'might' been wrong. What I see in the media, is most likely skewered. Politicians have a habit of lying in general. And I am totally reading through the 250 pages you sent, but I would appreciate it if you PM'd me what part you wished for me to read. Because I got my studies, and It just sorta threw me at the first page.

The point is that this whole topic does not really have a "purpose", if you are going to judge countries by how much they pay then you need to actually understand how the EU finances work, and what the funds are used for.

Saying that some countries pay less(and your example is quite wrong) while some countries pay more on paper might seem like some countries are "selfish" but it's not how exactly it works, the EU gets its funding from member states by from 2(well 3, there's also the import tax from non-EU/Schengen with some FTA exceptions but it's not relevant to what you said in your post) major vectors, GNI based payments, and VAT calls, for all countries VAT calls are capped this is to prevent the "rich" countries that gain much more income from VAT due to the fact that their population can spend more paying unproportional sums, some countries that both have a higher VAT rate and are much more prosperous than the average EU country like the UK or Germany and Austria have lower VAT caps.

Now i don't exactly understand where the UK comes in your post, but most people talk about the UK rebate, the UK rebate is quite an old rebate that has little to do with the financing of the EU these days, the rebate was negotiated in 1984 during that time the UK payed unproportionate amounts of money to the EU which in some years meant that it payed more money than the whole continental union together.

If you are just going to judge countries based on their participation in the union and their activies, than i think Denmark is a good example since they are the "biggest" opt out country in the union, Denemark opt-out of most of the EU core "laws" or treaties.

Denmark has not singed of, and does not implement EU citizenship laws, the common security and defense policy agreement, the economic and monetary union, or area of freedom, security and justice treaty.

As for the allocation of EU funding the member states actually have little control over that, since the EU parliament(as of 2009) is the body which is mandated to allocate those funds, and that's a whole other can of worms.

So yeah i don't really have any thing "useful" to add to this thread since i don't really see a clear question or a debate proposal.

I think the EU as a concept is great, but it's implementation is lacking, it's too schizophrenic and bureaucratic, and it gives too much power to smaller countries via the council(although recently more and more power have been given to the parliament which is almost just as bad), and some decisions like the bolkestein directive honestly just don't make any sense too me.

IMHO the whole idea of the EU(especially the 2000+ concept) needs to be revisited, for the most part it brought very little to the table since most(well if were' being frank all of) of it's laws, treaties, and agreements already existed.
It's caught at a somewhat awkward position between being nothing more than a bunch of trade agreements and a "global" government.

It just can't stay stuck in the middle, if it's going to revert back to it's core of global trade, cooperation, and internal relations then it really does not need the layer upon layers of bureaucracy that grew around it, and if it's going to actually be a pan-European government then all of it's members need to adopt and adapt while delegating some(well much) of their sovereignty to the union.

P.S.
I love the fact that you call me a right-wing Israeli, since i actually never voted for a right wing party in my life(voted for the labor party and kadima in the general elections, and labor and merez in the local ones).
But i guess accepting the fact that the state of Israel has to defend it self, and thinking the the whole current concept of negotiations with the Palestinians is flawed and could never yield any thing fruitful makes me a right winger.

Verbatim:
Snip

And reading your whole post I realized, the entire point of this thread. Had flied above your head and away. The thread itself was titled, 'how do you think about your countries behavior in the EU' like. 'Do you think that what your country says to the meetings correctly reflect your views on what we need to work our way towards in the union' NOT 'So, do you think other countries pay enough' It was an example. It was an example that showed that money was the 'main' issue. And not how the money was spent, no. THEY SPEND ALL THE TIME COMPLAINING HOW ITS SPEND OUTSIDE MEETINGS. But at meetings? They only talk about how to send less money in, almost zero time talking about how to make the spending itself more efficient, where to use said money. 'that' was the point. The thread was about everything from foreign policies to national policies, it was never specified that it was necessarily about economics. You made it that.

Like, it was right in the title too. For the people who dont read OP, so it couldnt have been that. The thread promoted things like, oh. I dunno.

'I dont think my country promoting national interrests in the international community is very smart because then you just end up with everyone promoting national interrests'

Heck, your entire arguement was made from a misunderstanding to begin with. If you read my post carefully you 'could' have spotted (If that were the case) Seriously... All I were missing was to put in that 'My countries politicians and economic experts say-

That would really have hammered it in, you might notice throughout our debate I've never argued against you on the point either. I've just wanted you to actually contribute something on-topic. But no. No you wanted to change the topic.

As for your point of constantly attacking Denmark. Let me say this in their defense.

They are about 30% less Eurosceptic than England, and each following Generation is less Eurospetic. And leaving the EU is not even a political issue there and has not been since the 80's. They were even thinking about joining the EURO and other things (as I recall more than 60% supported it) but then the financial crisis rolled around. And I really dont blame them for not wanting closer involvement with the union during that. But from my point of view they are closer to the EU than the UK.

Also, Kadiima is a centrist party that welcomes moderates aswell as right-wingers. To top it off Israel is generally seen as more along the US lines when discussing right and left so a centrist-slightly right just becomes rightwing. As such my assumption landed pretty well.

And last I wanna say - If they spent the entire meeting talking how to spent less like they usually do. There will be little time left to talk about how its spent in general. And therefor they can whine about how its spent until the next meeting once again, and that can be wasted aswell.

I just find that really stupid, twas all.

I really admire our financial minister, as she is the leader of the party I vote for. So I am honestly a bit surprised that she'd jump on this bandwagon of (I want a quarter of a billion discounts) EU has 600 billion! they can afford to give us one or two.

I mean seriously, FUCK. The stupid, its hurting my brain. And to think its everyones financial ministers doing this. Its like they are missing the point of the union.

Nikolaz72:

Verbatim:
Snip

And reading your whole post I realized, the entire point of this thread. Had flied above your head and away. The thread itself was titled, 'how do you think about your countries behavior in the EU' like. 'Do you think that what your country says to the meetings correctly reflect your views on what we need to work our way towards in the union' NOT 'So, do you think other countries pay enough' It was an example. It was an example that showed that money was the 'main' issue. And not how the money was spent, no. THEY SPEND ALL THE TIME COMPLAINING HOW ITS SPEND OUTSIDE MEETINGS. But at meetings? They only talk about how to send less money in, almost zero time talking about how to make the spending itself more efficient, where to use said money. 'that' was the point. The thread was about everything from foreign policies to national policies, it was never specified that it was necessarily about economics. You made it that.

That was my point exactly, read your original post again, it's really incoherent, the title asks "How do you think about your countries behavior in the EU? (States behavior in the Union)" which is quite vague, then you have a paragraph about how much certain countries pay, then you ask about the behavior again and about countries being selfish. So sorry but i don't know if something was lost in translation or you're written skills in english are not that great, but you should really revisit and reformulate your question/s(since I actually did have started arguing about economics(and the post you quoted was not any different), you shot down and ignored literally everything i said).

As I've said the post should be reformatted and refocused, due to how the EU is structured you can't just bring general questions like this and expect any valued debate to come out of them.
Many decisions made by EU countries do not have direct impact over global EU policies, each country still has it's own internal and foreign policies, it's own economic policy(although bound by EMU and other treaties), and many other things that don't really involve the EU. If you want it to be focuses on EU global policy, then focus it around council or parliamentary decisions, EU referendums(like the 2012 Danish referendum), the Scottish/Catalan Independence or the Partition of Belgium debates.

So yeah i don't really understand still what exactly do you want, and why you even mentioned the "member fees", since from your responses it seems that my remark about Denmark is quite valid since it opted out out of every major EU policy and for some reason you refrain from criticizing it(while not refraining from bluntly calling out forum members based solely of what you presume their nationality, political ideology, or even level of education is).

Verbatim:
Snip

If it was so vague how come several people managed to reply correctly. And you didnt. Maybe you just didnt comprehend it.

Esotera:
We act like complete fucking morons (UK). Our politicians seem to want it both ways - they want the trade of the EU, but don't want to listen to most of the legislation or pay slightly more.

What we really need is a referendum for a closer EU, and more accountability & traceability. The only feasible way of doing this is having a two-tier system of Europe, where states opting out remain in the current system, and states that opt in share a lot more decisions.

^ A man not missing the point. It really wasnt that hard. Sure this sorta requires you either live in a country or have lived in a country so recently that you know 'how' they act in the EU and therefor represent you after you voted for them-- which I doubt you have. Despite citizenship. So you usually wouldnt even reply to a thread like this.

Nikolaz72:

Verbatim:
Snip

If it was so vague how come several people managed to reply correctly. And you didnt. Maybe you just didnt comprehend it.

Esotera:
We act like complete fucking morons (UK). Our politicians seem to want it both ways - they want the trade of the EU, but don't want to listen to most of the legislation or pay slightly more.

What we really need is a referendum for a closer EU, and more accountability & traceability. The only feasible way of doing this is having a two-tier system of Europe, where states opting out remain in the current system, and states that opt in share a lot more decisions.

^ A man not missing the point. It really wasnt that hard. Sure this sorta requires you either live in a country or have lived in a country so recently that you know 'how' they act in the EU and therefor represent you after you voted for them-- which I doubt you have. Despite citizenship. So you usually wouldnt even reply to a thread like this.

Does not make it any less vague, and does not make what i wrote about Denmark any less relevant.
So ill rephrase my question how do you as a Danish citizen feel about your country not participating in the major EU policies, and where did you stand on the Danish referendum?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked