It seems to me that there are two important factors in play. The first is that the European Parliament is mostly irrelevant. They are very good at setting the size of sheets of paper, or what's in a chocolate bar, or the like, but useless when it comes to creating a workable social structure that will span all the countries of the EU.
Second, this didn't matter as long as the EU region was growing economically. It was possible to ignore unresolved differences and provide enough money to bring the weaker states forward by means of transfer payments.
The natural gas shock administered by Russia signaled the end of this period. The EU states realized that they were no longer going to be able to avoid the global forces at work elsewhere, and the economic crash in the US removed whatever wishful thinking still remained.
So what we see is a body with no transnational political power being expected to mediate between states who have reverted back to their long traditions of self interest. The same resource constraints and population pressures that are at play elsewhere are now staring EU states in the face.
There seem to be two responses. One is for the chattering classes to engage in the type of opaque, but profound sounding, pontificating that has long been popular (especially in France). Whole schools of thought have arisen, gallons of ink spilled and yet the impact of these thinkers remains marginal.
The second is for the political leaders to revert to some variations of nationalism. In the past this usually led to war, but this time this avenue (thankfully) this seems not to be an option. So it is unclear what the xenophobes will be able to do now that some of them have gotten elected.
I have no suggested solutions, there is no enforcement mechanism when states disagree as the troubled history of the UN shows. I don't see why things should go better in the EU. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
The first is that the European Parliament is mostly irrelevant.
It's certainly not irrelevant. It's just hard to explain, which may be the same in terms of TV exposure, but not quite the same in terms of actual influence.
They are very good at setting the size of sheets of paper, or what's in a chocolate bar, or the like, but useless when it comes to creating a workable social structure that will span all the countries of the EU.
Beyond the fact that setting the size of sheets of paper is actually important (how else do you get the paper AND printer markets to work otherwise?), this kind of petty dismissal of regulation, while typical of the anti-regulation English press, is actually false on substance: exemples of silly regulations are either false or distorted, and exemples pf meaningful regulation that ends up applying everywhere on the planet (like the GSM standard, or REACH) are carefully avoided.
The natural gas shock administered by Russia signaled the end of this period.
What natural gas shock? The only "shock" in the European natural gas business happened in the UK when they suddenly realized that they were running out of gas, something that was announced quite a few years in advance. The rest of Europe has been importing gas from Russia for decades and is not really stressed by the pseudo crises that so "worry" the English pundit class.
a body with no transnational political power being expected to mediate between states who have reverted back to their long traditions of self interest.
It does have transnational power. And the long traditions of self-interest have never been interrupted.
I don't see why things should go better in the EU.
Because, having almost self-destroyed once already, we're still keen not to do it again.
Honestly, it's a bit disappointing to read all the Europe.Is Doomed prejudice in your comment, after all we've written on these topics here on ET. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I don't read the English language press about the EU, in fact there is hardly any mention of EU politics and the EP to be found. What little I do hear is mostly from the BBC worldservice. You can factor in their prejudices accordingly.
I know you have vigorously defended your position about the Russian gas export business, but I'm not talking about economics, but psychology. At some point the gas stopped for several countries. It doesn't matter why it stopped, it just made people elsewhere realize that it could stop some time in the future for them as well. You seem to think that just because some action makes no sense from an economic point of view it won't happen. We have learned that countries can gleefully engaged in self-destructive behavior in spite of the facts.
As for your statement that the EP has transnational power, I think you will have to provide evidence of this. Right now, for example, Spain and Ireland are constrained as to what sorts of monetary policies they can undertake and the wealthier countries seem disinclined to help.
I'm not being a doom sayer, I just think that the EU is now facing its first real international challenge and has, as yet, to come up with an appropriate response. The future is not predetermined and like you, I hope that cool heads will prevail and new ideas will be forthcoming.
PS. I wasn't mocking the setting of standards, which is what the right does, just pointing out that it is easier to deal with specifics than with overarching social policy issues.
I'd be interested in hearing what steps are being contemplated or suggested to deal with the current crisis. I can't make head or tail out of the kinds of remarks that Daniel Cohn-Bendit made at the top of this thread. To me this is just the type of muddled thinking that the pundits delight in engaging in.
In the US things are different. The right is funded by the monied interests who provide the think tanks and academic appointments that keep their intellectual whores employed. So all the talk about free markets, trickle down, light regulation and the like is just a veneer meant to cover up the underlying greed that motivates the funders.
Without the same plutocracy in Europe I don't think there is the same connection between political thought and social positions. When you know who is paying your salary it focuses the mind and helps you concentrate on getting your master's positions disseminated.
If you think there are any specific sources that I might find useful I'd be happy for your suggestions. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
What little I do hear is mostly from the BBC worldservice.
You do realize that the first "B" of BBC stands for "British", right? You have to realize that anything the British say about Europe or the EU (and thus anybody writing in English and influenced by primary sources from London) has to be viewed with profound suspicion. "Balance" on that topic is somewhere between distaste and mistrust, compounded by a rather different understanding than on the continent of how much the EU matters internally.
At some point the gas stopped for several countries. It doesn't matter why it stopped, it just made people elsewhere realize that it could stop some time in the future for them as well.
Well, it depends what you mean by "it stopped." Wholesale deliveries from one source stopped, temporarily. Which is something that also happens now and then for technical reasons. Which is why you have storage, diversity of supply, etc... That the media chose to treate wholesale cuts from one source as "hospitals in the dark" is hyperbole and incompetence, to a large extent. Even in countries which rely heavily on Russian gas, it's not clear to me that they actually needed to cut supplies to domestic users, or that this was done to score easy political points - and it certainly points to incompetence in governments in dealing with a strategic issue. Continental Western Europe has dealt with full dependency on imports for many years, via massive storage capacity, diversified sources and so forth. So, if the Russian cuts revealed anything, it was the incompetence of some rather than a risk which has always been taken into account by the serious players.
As for your statement that the EP has transnational power, I think you will have to provide evidence of this.
Google "REACH"
Right now, for example, Spain and Ireland are constrained as to what sorts of monetary policies they can undertake and the wealthier countries seem disinclined to help.
That(s like saying that Congress obviously has no federal power because California is in a budgetary crisis. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I'm not talking about economics, but psychology
I see no evidence in Europe for a psychological shock of the kind you imagine. The British media, though, do make more of it, because Britain has a dog in the fight, namely, is running out of North Sea gas.
If you can't make head or tail of what Cohn-Bendit is saying above, it's because your knowledge of French and European politics is too summary. Try asking questions instead of pontificating on the basis of what you get from the BBC.
I didn't sense an ideological shift.
The problem (if problem there is) lies in its divisions.
I think the French PS seems to have an image problem: it's perceived as lackluster and lacking in ideas -- and has no charismatic leader.
It needs its own Obama.
But then what do I know?
Are you equalling hard left would-be radicals like Besancenot or Mélanchon to the traditionnal left like the PS?
Because it seems to me that there are more difference on the european topic between thses than between PS and the UMP (right): Both Mélanchon and Besancenot voted against the constitution treaty, whereas the PS voted YES.
I'm all in favour of division here, because such a difference on such an important issue cannot be hidden easily. (and should not) A free fox in a free henhouse!
(h/t to Migeru)
Once one is armed and primed by this emotion common in the USA, one is ready to attach one's logic to details, such as reference to silly stuff, tending to corroborate one's fundamental emotion.
The basic fact of Europe is that France and Germany are firmly decided to never make war with each other. France and Britain reached that same emotional status a century ago (or maybe earlier, 1815, when the British monarch renounced his right on France).
From that fact alone, Europe is unavoidable. Because Germany plus France, plus their low orbit satellites (Benelux, Lombardy, Catalogne, etc...) make a super power, and the others can't be left out...
Simply, in the USA, power is centralized in Wall Street, so European democracy confuses the American mind who naturally searches for little pieces of paper explaining it all... Since the USA is all about little pieces of paper in Wall Street, chasing each others... Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
