NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm open here to a healthy debate...

I'd like concise and clear arguements please.

We've had "Why should Britain stay in the EU?"

Now, I'd like to hear what the actual benifits of an integrated EU are, over, say multilateral FREE trade agreements, such that Switzerland has.

I'd also like to hear the benfitis of an Integrated EU compared to strengthening ties with first world Commonwealth countries and the US.

If are thinking along the lines of: "Well no one likes the US", please take your anti-americanism and stick it up your back side.

Also, the same applies with "The EU suck, they are just a bunch of NWO supranationists".

no benefits. just the obvious drawback of losing sovereingty.

This is why th EU should split up.

Because without the CAP, our farmers would be gutted.

Because without the EU, nothing would get done between European states.

Because it helps relations with newer EU states in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.

The benefits are numerous:
* Freedom of movement of goods and services (makes us all richer)
* Freedom of employment, want to pack up and go work in Slovakia? Well now you can!
* Right to have your trail promoted to the supranational European courts. Feel like your government has screwed you? Take it up with Europe, they can address any national injustice.
* and many many more...

Also 'sovereignty' is a dud concept. As long as the sovereignty is not invested in the people (which it has never been... except in Democratic Athens) then in effect it is merely the transferal of powers from one group of elites to another. Both in real terms are as distant to you as the other.

Ultimately, this is the same dilemma the United States faced before strengthening the federal governemnt. Economies of scale make some government services (minting money for one) cheaper. It can give a little back to the people by reducing their burden (a euro is a euro everywhere). But more importantly the internal costs, over time, as the integration increases, are reduced, and the whole of the new European Union market becomes greater than the sum of it's parts.

It's a worthwhile idea. But everyone has to give up something to make something like that happen. The question for Britain is, "Is that what the British must give up balanced out by what they recieve in concessions?" And that's a pretty difficult question.

The benefits are numerous:
* Freedom of movement of goods and services (makes us all richer)
* Freedom of employment, want to pack up and go work in Slovakia? Well now you can!
* Right to have your trail promoted to the supranational European courts. Feel like your government has screwed you? Take it up with Europe, they can address any national injustice.
* and many many more...


I'm sure the Swiss can do the first two... and as for the third, it is a moot point. Where does one go if they feel they are being screwed with by the European Courts? That arguement can be carried on for ever, the case for a "higher" court.

The only difference with the EU is, that (often) the power is not vested in a national of a country in which power is being exercised, i.e a French Judge ruling on British mattters.

I suppose, when you compare the county courts, thats why you must be a resident of the country you are a judge in, before you sit in court.

But hey..

I honestly think the EU should eventually become a full country, with the current countries as states. A United States of Europe, as it were. But that's just me and my American ignorance of the European situation forming a poor opinion.

I'm open here to a healthy debate...

I'd like concise and clear arguements please.

We've had "Why should Britain stay in the EU?"

Now, I'd like to hear what the actual benifits of an integrated EU are, over, say multilateral FREE trade agreements, such that Switzerland has.

I'd also like to hear the benfitis of an Integrated EU compared to strengthening ties with first world Commonwealth countries and the US.

If are thinking along the lines of: "Well no one likes the US", please take your anti-americanism and stick it up your back side.

Also, the same applies with "The EU suck, they are just a bunch of NWO supranationists".

To speak personally, the ability to live and work anywhere within the union without needing to go through all the paperwork of getting work permits, residence permits, etc.

As I couldn't find work in Germany a few years back, I moved to Ireland. That was only possible due to EU agreements, and I have to say it did help me a lot.

I'm sure the Swiss can do the first two... and as for the third, it is a moot point. Where does one go if they feel they are being screwed with by the European Courts? That arguement can be carried on for ever, the case for a "higher" court.

The only difference with the EU is, that (often) the power is not vested in a national of a country in which power is being exercised, i.e a French Judge ruling on British mattters.

I suppose, when you compare the county courts, thats why you must be a resident of the country you are a judge in, before you sit in court.

But hey..

Er... no, the Swiss can't do the first two.

That still misses he vital point.

What are the benifits of a Integrated Europe, over the Swiss system?

You don't need a political union of countries to be able to have a free movement of goods and people.

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/switzerland/intro/index.htm

Check that out..ilateral trading agreements.

Peace. That's the most important thing a united, integrated Europe has to offer.

That still misses he vital point.

What are the benifits of a Integrated Europe, over the Swiss system?

You don't need a political union of countries to be able to have a free movement of goods and people.


Well, integrated Europe has those benefits, the Swiss don't. There you go.

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/switzerland/intro/index.htm

Check that out..ilateral trading agreements.

I think you mistake "free movement of people" to mean permission to live and work wherever they choose. As far as I know, all it means that you can cross the Swiss border without controls...

But, you see, in many situations, the swiss do get those benifits...

All the "basic-freedoms" are pretty much provided to them...

But, you see, in many situations, the swiss do get those benifits...

All the "basic-freedoms" are pretty much provided to them...

If I wanted to go and work in Switzerland, I'd still have to go through a nightmare of paperwork. That's one of the many reasons why I chose to go to Ireland instead.

From a more socio-economic point of view, an integrated Europe could ensure a more level playing field when it comes to basic working conditions in each member state. Certain basic requirements (at least theoretically) have to be met.

It can help level the field internationally if it decides to require trading partners to also implement these basic requirements. Though this will be almost impossible to enforce. However, non-EU European countries tend to implement these things quicker than member states in order to both foster quicker entry to the union for those interested and ensure fair trade for those not so interested (such as Norway).

no benefits. just the obvious drawback of losing sovereingty.

This is why th EU should split up.
I'd say it should become something like Switzerland; a confederal union. Splitting up is silly at this point. Further integration is a definite path to disaster though.

I think the EU is developing quite a few useful ideas, which serve to create a balance of sovereignty of sorts. And it seems to be working alright. Europe is growing sustainably and is peaceful.

Northford seems to misunderstand the Schengen Area. For one Switzerland has yet to implement the Schengen agreement, and secondly it grants Swiss citizens no right to work or reside in EU countries.

Your arguement seems to be about intergovermentalism vs. supranationalism/neofunctionalism. The seem to suggest that we can have the benefits of the EU with just the intergovernmentalist approach. The benefits of supranationalism are that the EU has a body to represent the whole union as opposed to just each memberstate looking out for themselves. So in affect each memberstate can fight it's corner for what it feels is best for themselves, and this won't mean the eventual decay of the treaties and agreements as the Commission is looking out for the interests of the EU as a whole. For what benefits individual nations may not benefit the Union. One instance is the CAP. In it's current form the CAP is beneficial to many countries. However, in the long run it is damaging the EU and needs serious reform (but not to be completely abolished - food security is very useful).

You seem to be envious of Switzerland's position. May I remind you that they have absolutely no say with regards to the Schengen Agreement or EFTA. They can either take it or leave it - they are not open to neogiation.

I'm also interested by the EU principle of Subsidarity. This is where problems are attempted to be solved at the lowest possible level. That is - local gov -> national gov -> EU. In essence it means the EU doesn't get involved any deeper than it needs to and so subsidarity helps prevent needless bureaucracy.

So as to your question as to why integrate? Why did society ever integrate? Couldn't everything that has ever been done be achieved by mutual negociation? Because if you are going to integrate on ANY level then you do need to politcally integrate on an appropriate level. How will nations decide interest rates if they share a common currency? A common bank? To whom is that bank responsible? etc...

What I'm going to finish with the Social Democrat phrase - 'by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone' (Well done if you realised this was written by Tony Blair). This includes, but is not limited to, political power. Why do we, as individual humans, give up part of our independence to be governed by others? It is because we realise that we acheive more than together than as individuals, but to work together we need to delegate power or come to a mutual agreement. Now I'll think you'll find getting 450 million people to come to a common agreement is a bit tricky, even getting 15 member states to come to an agreement was hard.

Gah... I've deviated from my orignal intentions too much. This is what I get when I try to write at any sort of length without notes.

a) We integrate with Europe moreso than the Commonwealth and the US because most of our trade is with them.
b) We integrate with the EU more than Switzerland does so we can actually have a say in how we integrate. If you think the UK is a passive member of the EU you are sadly mistaken.