The dominant oppositional paradigm to the EU appears to me to be a range of variants on a nationalist theme. A minority alternative dissenting view wants the EU to be More federalist or even a super-state.
Those that complain of a democratic deficit generally propose some variant on a more direct democratic structure, but never suggest why smaller states with smaller populations who would be disadvantaged by such a move would want to agree to it.
Your comment ChrisCook:
Again, unlike you - I think - I see existing institutions ... (EU Parliament, Commission, ECB) as part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Sounds to me uncomfortably reminiscent of Reagan's "Government is part of the problem not part of the solution" and until I see better alternatives actually working on the ground (and not just in theory) I prefer to stick with what we have subject to ongoing review and reform where appropriate...
I know this sounds a mite conservative, but sometimes change can be for the worse as well as better. notes from no w here
It seems like there is a tension between wanting to have the advantages of a single community (single currency, common electrical outlets, single football league) whilst retaining many of the national features (restrictions on movement of labor, "financial rescue packages" that protect local industry, national control of interest rates). I can't figure out whether this is part of a transition to a federal Europe or a sign that the E.U. project is stalled--or at least moving sort of slowly...
Thus sure - people would much prefer greater control at national level - as this is closer top where they have some influence/representation. But the reality is you won't retain much control over globalisation at that level - particularly in a small state like Ireland. notes from no w here
Bruce McF kindly corrected me in relation to the precise meaning of "Institution" in polite society :-) so I think that my problem with the EU is not so much with it as an Institution, but rather with what is has evolved into organisationally.
As an analogy to the current state of the EU I am reminded of a network of radical housing co-operatives
Radical Routes
which as it has grown has become one of the least radical organisations there is, simply because their need for consensus means that agreement on anything is incredibly difficult to achieve. Herding cats doesn't come close....
I think that in the Internet age "government" whether local, national or regional (eg EU) has no future as a stand alone "organisation" with a separate legal personality from "we the people". A corollary to this is that I think that representative democracy is past its sell-by date, too.
States and Governments of the future will, I think, be networked, participative and will evolve from the ground up. People will self organise - within consensual framework agreements - to gradually take on those functions currently carried out by "the State". They will do so, firstly because they can, and secondly because partnership structures work in terms of equitable sharing of risk and reward.
The urgent need for this evolution is in the financial sector, which is no longer fit for purpose, and which is IMHO beyond saving, even by governments.
I wrote 8 years ago
Market 3.0
about how global (market) governance and regulation may be achieved, and that remains as relevant today as it was then, IMHO. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Either you have unanimity, or you don't. There's no way around it. Either people can have veto right and effectively block things, or they don't, in which it's not consensual. But if it's consensual, it's highly likely to be paralysed. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The advantage of representative government in the age of light-speed communication is not - if it ever was - about bridging communication time lags. The main advantage is that it permits me, the citizen (plural: we, the people) to delegate the issues that I neither know nor care enough about to research myself, to people whose judgement I trust on the issues that I do know and care about.
I don't know whether building a wind farm on Farmer Joe's field will hurt the local population of crittercrawlers. And while I do care, at least in the abstract, about the fate of the crittercrawlers, I have neither the time, the skill or the inclination to research the subject exhaustively.
So I delegate judgement to the people I trust to make the right decisions on the subject of habitat protection for crittercrawlers, because I know that they have in the past made the right calls on subjects I do know and care about. Like going to war (or not, as the case may be), pro-cyclical vs. counter-cyclical economic policies or how to manage universities.
In other words, it's division of labour, the advantage of which does not disappear simply because light-speed communication is possible (without which, in fact, light-speed communication would not be possible...).
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
The EU was built on competence. It's still run mostly that way, even if money is increasingly trying to pervert the process. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The IMF was also a reasonably competent affair for a couple of decades (certainly better than what came before, not that that says a whole heck of a lot...).
Then Milton Friedman happened.
Competent technocrats are necessary to prevent insane politicians from making insane decisions in perfectly democratic ways - the iconic example is the judge who strikes down a wildly popular law as being unconstitutional.
And elected officials (directly elected officials, pretty please) are important, in order to prevent the technocrats from going crazy. The necessity of greater public accountability in the IMF being an iconic case in point here.
Whether the Union strikes more or less the right balance is a question that I really don't want to get too deep into here and now. Partly because the Union is a big place, and you can probably find examples of both excessive technocracy and excessive populism. And partly because the current subthread does not strike me as conducive to that particular discussion.
You cannot get competence from bureaucracies unless you acknowledge that competence is possible - and indeed desirable. That's what I do. I want government to be competent. I start by making sure that the concept can exist - because it has.
30 years of Reagan, Thatcher, cronies, descendants and bastards all spewing the same lies (actually - increasingly outrageous lies, the bigger the better) have consequences. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
It cuts both ways. Sometimes the politicians have restrained neolib technocrats, and at other times entrenched technocrats have restrained neolib politicians.
In the end, the discussion of technocracy vs. elected officials is something of a sidetrack: Any sensible policy will have to be backed by both groups in order to be implemented in a concerted fashion, because both the politicians and the technocrats have the capacity to kill a policy dead if they want to.
And governments are led astray by supposedly impartial technocrats who have assimilated crazy ideas from colleagues abroad that have yet to make it into the political discourse at home.
