for decades.

Conditions that did not exist before the EU and that Europeans, as you recognize, do not want to part with.

And the forces that want to weaken or demolish the EU also want immigration restrictions, border controls and tariffs back. If the EU dies, the old Europe will return. And the old Europe was not very peaceful or prosperous for the average European.


That is precisely the argument that the far-right makes. The "right wing populist" argument attacking the "liberal elite in Brussels" is really all they have since they know that they cannot campaign in favor of travel, work and trade restrictions if they ever get their way.

I agree that (from my understanding) they don't want to go back. The idea of the EU is solid. My point is that, at this time in it's history, it is being used in ways the population does not all agree with.

This whole idea (not from you) that somehow everything that the right wing stands against means that we must think the opposite is unhelpful. Sometimes the right wing / Tea Partiers/ whatever, may have a legitimate concern (not always) , but in my experience in those cases it is their "solutions" and "approach" where we really differ. But just because the far right there (and here) is clamoring about a particular problem does not always mean that a lot of the population is not also concerned or that there is not a real issue that needs attention?

Furthermore the EU aren't liberal in the American sense, except for maybe neoliberal and neoliberals aren't like American liberals. American liberals are social democrats. Euro neoliberals are libertarians. They are destroying social security and the safetynet and Europe is far poorer for it. Claiming that only right wingers oppose that is deeply clueless and possibly dishonest.

The EU is deeoply unpopular with both the left and the right. Look at the succes of Syriza, and the left parties in Portugal. Look at how deeply unpopular Francios Hollande has become since he imposed EU austerity. Is it because the French are far-rightists that have always hated the Eu? Is it because he has made them more prosperous than they have been historically? Are you in a cave?

trying to weaken it. Of course. When do conservatives not do that? That is no reason for liberals to abandon the fight and the institution.

Taxes are higher and more progressive, unions are stronger, incomes are distributed much more fairly, the middle class is stronger than anywhere else in the world.

Yeah, it sounds like European liberals are real "neo liberals" and "libertarians".

Of course, there are undoubtedly many liberals who oppose some EU policies. However, the massive effort to weaken or eliminate the EU, as an institution, is indisputably coming from parties on the far right.

And that far right opposition is not the result of too much "libertarianism" or "neoliberalism" from the EU. The far right's opposition is because they view the EU as much too liberal for their tastes

They have destroyed unions, privatized health care, the Universities, and eliminated pensions. The fact that those things still exist doesn't mean the Eu caused it. It is like saying that if someone with a bunch of leeches on their body still has blood that the leeches produced the blood. The Eu as an institution is not savable because it mandates austerity. It also mandates bank control over monetary policy, rather than democratic control. Keynesiaism is against the law in the EU. It is illiberal as hell and can not do anything but destroy whatever social democracy is left, because that is the way it was designed. The fact that it's opponants are nationalists doesn't not make it progressive. Libertarians are globalist too, and sure as heck aren't progressive in any way. I don't support free trade that destroys labor regulations and environmental regulations. Don't claim that is liberal in the American understanding of the word. It is liberal in Eu understanding, which is more like Peter Thiel.

and continue to fight against it.

I don't believe that taking Europe back in time to a continent of nationalist conservative governments restricting travel, trade and work to outcompete every other country is preferable. (And that is what the far right wants.) There is no "invisible hand" that would create the greatest good for the greatest number under that scenario. That would be a true conservative "free market" solution - each country for itself with a minimum of international cooperation.

If you favor some other mechanism for European cooperation and integration, I would be interested in your ideas.

Nationalist did opposed it, but it doesn't mean Social Democrats should support it. The truth is many were tricked by a well funded propaganda campaign, in to support Maastricht, and support for it only happened after resubmitting it for a vote several times.. I would be interested in integrating under a more democratic Union, where monetary policy wasn't dictated by a flawed unchangeable Constitution and where it was reviewed democratically rather than by unelected bankers. The Eu is all countries tied together with international cooperation in imposing privatization. Europe was at peace for over 50 years without the Eu, and it was hardly governed by the right wing. If anything the rise of the right wing parties has coincided with its ascendancy Most of its social democratic accomplishments happened without the Eu, accept for maybe freedom of movement without passports, but that seems like a minor advance that doesn't justify sacrificing safety nets and environmental regulations.

then you are entitled to your definition. To me that is the essence of liberalism.

FDR was behind the creation of many multilateral institutions, e.g. the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund to name a few, designed to bring countries together to discuss problems and find common solutions.

If you consider FDR's approach to global diplomacy and problem solving to be 'neoliberal' - again, you are welcome to your definition. To me the concept of countries coming together to negotiate and find peaceful solutions to regional and global problems is the essence of liberalism. How else do you solve these problems? With armies - which was the custom in Europe and elsewhere in earlier times.

The European idea started in 1951 with the ECSC and has progressed ever since. The momentum has always been towards a closer cooperation and integration that would make the continent more peaceful and prosperous than at any time in its history. Europeans knew that prior to the war, each country had erected border controls and tariffs against each other in an effort to achieve prosperity using a "beggar thy neighbor" approach. In the 1950's Europeans knew approach did not work and that competing nationalistic governments do not bring peace and prosperity. Quite the opposite. So they went about creating a continent with less nationalism and more cooperation.

I agree that a more democratic European Union was be fantastic and I think that is what Social Democrats should and do work for. The reason that Social Democrats do not support the far-right's efforts to destroy the EU is that they do not think that is the best way to create a more democratic union.

Last edited Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:27 AM - Edit history (2)

social democratic voter. The politicians are a different story. Many are SD in name only, like Hollande. "Countries coming together to solve a problem" is vague, not liberal. They can come together to solve problems perceived by the right, and in the case of economics this is always true since the banks control that area, not elected leaders. FDR played no role in the formation of the Eu, and was dead by the time the the IMF and the World Bank actually were created. Truman did most of it, and he was a real mixed bag. Frankly FDR could be a real mixed bag when it came to supporting right wing dictators in Latin America.

I wouldn't cry if the Eu desolved tomorrow. It is true something better wouldn't come down the pike right away but I don't think that is a catastrophe.

That right wing propaganda rag truth-out.org elaborates

The EU is designed in ways that facilitate direct catering to the needs and concerns of powerful interests instead of those of the common citizen. As for the famous "principle of subsidiarity," introduced as Article 3b in the Treaty Establishing the European Community and later incorporated in the Maastricht Treaty (see below) as Article 5 - and which many continue to treat as evidence of the democratic nature of the decision-making process in the EU - is more an optical illusion than anything else. The "principle of subsidiarity" does not assert, as is often claimed, that decisions will be made at the lowest possible level, but rather that "the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community."

What has now become abundantly clear is that all major EU decisions are made at the top level by nonelected officials while national citizens are relegated to a status equal to that enjoyed by the subjects of ancient Rome. In the current eurozone debt crisis, even the heads of indebted member-states have very little say in the decision-making process, with the German minister of finance behaving like a Caesar.

The Maastricht Treaty made Kenysianism impossible.

The Maastricht Treaty incorporated the key ideas and principles that were included in the SEA and proceeded with the formal institutionalization of a neoliberal framework for the future direction of European economies, including the setting up of a currency union and a European Central Bank (ECB). In essence, the treaty formalized the drive toward "anti-social Europe" and outlined in a specific manner the steps to be taken for the adoption of a single currency (the transition to the formation of a European Monetary Union [EMU] was to involve three stages between 1993 and 1999, when the official launching of the eurozone occurred). According to the treaty, which sought to allow only good candidates to join the EMU, any European convergence economy was eligible to adopt the euro, provided: (a) its inflation rate was not more than 1.5 percent above the average of the three-lowest inflation rates among EU countries; (b) its government debt and deficit were no more than 60 percent and 3 percent of its GDP, respectively; (c) it had joined the exchange rate mechanism of the European Monetary System and maintained normal exchange rate fluctuation margins for two years without severe tensions arising; and (d) its long-term interest rate was no more than 2 percent above that of the three countries with the lowest inflation rate.

The nature of the Treaty the Eu is based on made austerity and privatization inevitable. This is why it can't be reformed. It was passed by lying to people about what it said and did.

In analyses of the foundations of the European Monetary System, commentators frequently make note of its flawed architectural design. However, its so-called "flawed" architecture was not the result of a "technical error." As already argued, it stemmed from the very premises of the fundamentally neoliberal economic thinking that had begun to take hold of the mindset of European policymakers in the 1980s in their apparent effort to find a way to end "eurosclerosis" and boost European corporate profits. The sudden shift from a social market economy, which took root in the 1940s and prevailed till the early 1980s, to a laissez-faire market economy was too blatant to be missed. By the time the Maastricht Treaty was signed, European policymaking circles had become obsessed with the belief that the critical variables for growth, fairness and convergence were to be found in trade openness and competition (Article 102a), deep financial integration and no restrictions on capital movements (Article 73b).

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19334-the-tragedy-of-greece-as-a-case-study-of-neo-imperial-pillage-and-the-demise-of-social-europe


The Eu was designed to do precisely what it did. Any reform of this would dissolve the Treaty and thus the Eu. There is nothing liberal in the American sense about the Eu. Nothing.

Europe since the 1970's has made me lots of strong ties to European and UK people and so I know that the EU is opposed by the hard right very strongly. I know Europe with and without the EU. I'm a guy who has spent a few Shillings and a few Francs. Also a few Euros.
Your arrogance is another thing I see as right wing xenophobia. 'Americans don't understand Europe at all' you say. Fer fuck's sake. Of course, you understand the US and Europe and everything!!!!!!

So basically because we disagree about Ukraine I know nothing about Europe?

Care to actually discuss what you know about the EU, or why you think my observation was innacurate?

You can travel to Europe and never leave behind your preconceptions or even re-inforce them. I know right wingers that love places in Europe and come home thinking that all of Europe thinks just like they do.

Not at all saying you had that type of experience. But care to elaborate or are you just here to tell me you don't like me or my writing style?

Or maybe you can let us know what basis you have for this information..? Do you have a link to support what you are saying? BTW, I live in Europe right now, and I am not on the same page as you are.

That there is no resistance or serious concerns about corporate influence?

I think people are misunderstanding my point. That governance of the EU is not quite a democratic thing and there is criticism for that reason. And indeed, the far right would not be making the gains they are; they would not even be able to imply half the things they do, if there were not some general discontent on the part of the general public.

Please do expand.

Your OP was so vaguely written that I was asking you to "please expand", so that I could figure out what the heck your point was!

But, actually, your reply to me clarified a lot that you might have thought you had said, but in fact, had left out. Next time you write an OP on this subject, you may want to include a few more specifics. Thank you, now I have a better idea about what you are talking about.

Also: "So are you saying there is not discontent in the management of the EU?That there is no resistance or serious concerns about corporate influence?" I am wondering what in my post made you jump to that unfounded conclusion about what I wrote?

I think people are misunderstanding my point. Yes, they are! We aren't mind readers and neither are you!

but right wing libertarians support gay rights and free trade and it doesn't make them liberals. The Eu is dismantling the safetynet in most countries and that is why the left has come to hate it.

... where the ordinary people are simply crushed.

Sharing strategic interests, NATO and the European Union (EU) cooperate on issues of common interest and are working side by side in crisis-management, capability development and political consultations. At the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, the Allies underlined their determination to improve the NATO-EU strategic partnership.

NATO’s new Strategic Concept, adopted at Lisbon, commits the Alliance to prevent crises, manage conflicts and stabilize post-conflict situations, including by working more closely with NATO’s international partners, most importantly the United Nations and its strategic partner, the European Union.

The Strategic Concept clearly states that an active and effective European Union contributes to the overall security of the Euro-Atlantic area. Therefore the EU is a unique and essential partner for NATO. The two organizations share a majority of members (21), and all members of both organizations share common values.

NATO recognizes the importance of a stronger and more capable European defence. The Allies welcome the entry into force of the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty, which provides a framework for strengthening the EU’s capacities to address common security challenges. Non-EU European Allies make a significant contribution to these efforts. For the strategic partnership between NATO and the EU, their fullest involvement in these efforts is essential.

NATO and the EU can and should play complementary and mutually reinforcing roles in supporting international peace and security. The Allies are determined to make their contribution to create more favourable circumstances through which they will:

fully strengthen the strategic partnership with the EU, in the spirit of full mutual openness, transparency, complementarity and respect for the autonomy and institutional integrity of both organizations;
enhance practical cooperation in operations throughout the crisis spectrum, from coordinated planning to mutual support in the field;
broaden political consultations to include all issues of common concern, in order to share assessments and perspectives;
cooperate more fully in capability development, to minimise duplication and maximise cost-effectiveness.

Close cooperation between NATO and the European Union is an important element in the development of an international “Comprehensive Approach” to crisis management and operations, which requires the effective application of both military and civilian means.

The Chicago Summit in May 2012 reiterated these principles by underlining that NATO and the EU share common values and strategic interests. The EU is a unique and essential partner for NATO. Fully strengthening this strategic partnership, as agreed by the two organisations and enshrined in the Strategic Concept, is particularly important in the current environment of austerity.

In this context, the Secretary General has engaged actively with his EU counterparts, including the President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy, the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Durao Barroso, the President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz, as well as the High Representative/Vice President of the Commission, Baroness Ashton. He has addressed the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee in joint session with the sub-committee on Security and Defence on numerous occasions.Institutionalized relations between NATO and the European Union were launched in 2001, building on steps taken during the 1990s to promote greater European responsibility in defence matters (NATO-WEU cooperation¹). The political principles underlying the relationship were set out in the December 2002 NATO-EU Declaration on ESDP.

With the enlargement of both organizations in 2004 followed by the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union in 2007, NATO and the European Union now have 21 member countries in common².

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49217.htm

But it doesn't take a conspiracy for the wealthy to turn a good idea into their own party, which it seems they would like to do in a lot of venues these days.