Not in this context, the countries promise to do something to the EU, but their citizens don't like it, so what happens?

The government either pays lip service to the EU or tries to keep its promises, and either faces massive strikes that threaten to bring the government down or lose the next election. In either case the promises to the EU are not kept and the balance between the countries increases causing further stresses.

Fiscal union would force them to keep to the EU line and either pay massive fines or leave. If fiscal union had been put in place from day one then the present problems would not have occurred or the EU would now be a few countries less.

Actually no, that generally does not happen. First, countries that actually do not comply with EU law can be sued. And in the most extreme cases, can rack up some pretty hefty fines. But really, most countries do not want to let it come to that, simply because it also causes damage to their reputation in Brussels, and that affects their power during negotiations. No one is interested in hearing the proposals of someone that goes back on them later.

Second, if the measure is unpopular back at the country...well, that does not happen so often. Mostly because EU policies are pretty technical in nature, they usually on affect certain groups or industries. It might be unpopular with them, but it rarely happens that a measure that gets taken in Brussels affects the entire population and then also happens to be incredibly unpopular. Usually such proposals fail to get adopted or they get modified to such an extend they are no long so unpopular.

So if you dont obey the EU rules, You get sued? And could get hefty fines? What if said country says screw you we aint paying?

You keep harping that the EU dosent have any teeth to force a member nation to go along with Brussles whims. But the EU can sue a nation in submission?
I can see why the UK wants out. I can see why Germany can flex its ecominic muscles and try to impress Its vision on the EU.

I think you have an expeirement in government that will implode.

---

[/quote]

Old James

So if you dont obey the EU rules, You get sued? And could get hefty fines? What if said country says screw you we aint paying?

A country that is so bend on doing that is probably just going to get out of the EU. Though honestly, the way countries operate within the EU makes it unlikely that a deal gets adopted that is so unacceptable to one member state that it would rather step out of the EU. Usually they either get something back for it, or the deal gets changed to make it more acceptable.

Also, let me ask you this. What if say...Ohio tells the supreme court that it can sod off with its gay marriage and Obamacare rulings and proceeds to implement laws that penalizes homosexuality and oppose Obamacare?

You keep harping that the EU dosent have any teeth to force a member nation to go along with Brussles whims. But the EU can sue a nation in submission?
I can see why the UK wants out. I can see why Germany can flex its ecominic muscles and try to impress Its vision on the EU.

I think you have an expeirement in government that will implode.

Yeah, it can, but it hardly ever happens. So far fines are a pretty rare thing, and more often than not nations do not comply in time with EU regulations due to technical issues that delay implementation. And the EU can do more than just fine countries. Currently its discussing whether it should penalize Hungary by removing its vote in the council due to their constitution that is seen as authoritarian and anti democratic.

James: It appears the European Union may, in some ways, be similar to our own Articles of Confederation, which also imploded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

To the Europeans reading this:

This was our first form of National Government (1781 to 1788). The present Constitution of the United States, became effective in 1789, after The State's Delegates convened to modify the Articles.

They very quickly decided this would not work, scrapped it, and started anew.

Perhaps Europe should think about this.

P.S. During the time of the Articles: There were 10 Presidents, none named George Washington.

Yeah, no, its not even close to similar to what the EU is today.

This is what passes off as our 'constitution'

Then there is also this thing

Those two combined form the heart of the EU as it is today. But you are right, its probably going to get changed again somewhere in the future. The EU is very much a work in progress, it started out as something to regulate the European coal and steel industries, today its an economic union with a bunch of political aspects attached to it and who knows what it looks like in 60 years from now.

It probably doesn't affect the Netherlands, Belgium or Germany very much, but just think how many times French Unions have gone on strike and blocked the ports or closed the air routes over France. These have all caused massive problems for UK industry and its people, because they usually do it just at peak holiday times. And what action has the EU taken against France?

I'll give you a clue, in numerical terms, it is less that one.

I must admit I meant to mention them, but somehow I slipped up. (It's Sunday and I've had another busy week, before you holler, AGAIN)

I must admit that if I'm traveling south I usually go Hull to Zeebrugge or Rotterdam.

It probably doesn't affect the Netherlands, Belgium or Germany very much, but just think how many times French Unions have gone on strike and blocked the ports or closed the air routes over France. These have all caused massive problems for UK industry and its people, because they usually do it just at peak holiday times. And what action has the EU taken against France?

I'll give you a clue, in numerical terms, it is less that one.

The EU does not take action against France? Oh boy, you should read up on your case law because there are plenty of examples of the EU taking action against France. In case of French nationals blocking ports or highways and disrupting trade, there is the (pretty famous) Spanish Strawberries case, where French farmers blocked trucks carrying Spanish strawberries while the police did nothing. In the end, this case in particular established that Member States are liable when their nationals block or disrupt trade. France was held responsible for what a bunch of farmers did.

Even so, there are no EU laws that state unions cannot hold legal strikes. The EU does not have any competences in the field of going after unions, so really, member states are responsible for what the unions can and cannot do. I suppose though that if a union blocks off a port and the action is not approved by the government, you could file a complaint at the commission.

Also, in case your flight got delayed or canceled because French unions blocked off the air, you should check your air passenger rights (courtesy of the EU) to see if you can either get a refund or a compensation.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear.

I wasn't speaking about the Particular's of the two.

Only about trying a new System, finding it doesn't work, and continually 'Tweaking' it.

Maybe it would be better to 'Start Again'.

First, how does it not work? And second, the EU has changed so drastically over time that 'tweaking' it doesn't really cover it. The difference between the Maastricht Treaty and anything that came before it is as big as those articles of the confederation and the constitution.

So if you dont obey the EU rules, You get sued? And could get hefty fines? What if said country says screw you we aint paying?

A country that is so bend on doing that is probably just going to get out of the EU. Though honestly, the way countries operate within the EU makes it unlikely that a deal gets adopted that is so unacceptable to one member state that it would rather step out of the EU. Usually they either get something back for it, or the deal gets changed to make it more acceptable.

Also, let me ask you this. What if say...Ohio tells the supreme court that it can sod off with its gay marriage and Obamacare rulings and proceeds to implement laws that penalizes homosexuality and oppose Obamacare?

You keep harping that the EU dosent have any teeth to force a member nation to go along with Brussles whims. But the EU can sue a nation in submission?
I can see why the UK wants out. I can see why Germany can flex its ecominic muscles and try to impress Its vision on the EU.

I think you have an expeirement in government that will implode.

Yeah, it can, but it hardly ever happens. So far fines are a pretty rare thing, and more often than not nations do not comply in time with EU regulations due to technical issues that delay implementation. And the EU can do more than just fine countries. Currently its discussing whether it should penalize Hungary by removing its vote in the council due to their constitution that is seen as authoritarian and anti democratic.

I would guess that the US govrernment would tell The state of Ohio That they then would lose all federal aid. For schools, highwyas and medicade. Most of the 50 states have been sucking on the federal teat so long They coulnd not get by with fed money.
Also I am old enough to remember when Gov. George Wallace told the Supreme court to stuff the anti segragation law where the sun didnt shine. Seems the then Presisdent sent the National Guard to enforce it.
We had a few states tried to seccede back in 1861. Diodnt work out very well for them.
Id like to see Brussles send in another nations troops and try to get money after another country being sued and then told to bug off.

You keep stating that the EU cant force another memeber country to do something if the memeber nation dosent want to. So if Greece or Spain tells the EU to shut up about there monetary issues, What would you do. Kick them out or sue them some more. Or just let them drag the rest of the EU down?

---

[/quote]

Old James

I would guess that the US govrernment would tell The state of Ohio That they then would lose all federal aid. For schools, highwyas and medicade. Most of the 50 states have been sucking on the federal teat so long They coulnd not get by with fed money.
Also I am old enough to remember when Gov. George Wallace told the Supreme court to stuff the anti segragation law where the sun didnt shine. Seems the then Presisdent sent the National Guard to enforce it.
We had a few states tried to seccede back in 1861. Diodnt work out very well for them.
Id like to see Brussles send in another nations troops and try to get money after another country being sued and then told to bug off.

Ah, right, that is also an option for the EU. Simply suspend sending funds to a country that does not comply. It has done that with Bulgaria after it was found that most of the EU funds disappeared in the pockets of a bunch of politicians.

You are right though, the EU can't send troops to a country to 'impose' EU law by force. All it can do is send fines that countries way or suspend funding. But given that pretty much all European countries respect the rule of law, they tend to comply to EU law, if somewhat reluctant in some cases.

All member states are free to leave the EU at any given moment if they want to. So no European civil war when that happens.

You keep stating that the EU cant force another memeber country to do something if the memeber nation dosent want to. So if Greece or Spain tells the EU to shut up about there monetary issues, What would you do. Kick them out or sue them some more. Or just let them drag the rest of the EU down?

Hmm, let me clarify then. The EU cannot create laws and pass them without the approval of the member states. So, if a member states opposes a certain law, it can block it during the negotiation process. However, if an agreement is reached and the law is adopted (meaning the country voted in favor or in certain cases, was part of a minority) the law becomes law. After that, member states will have to adopt the law. If they don't, the EU has certain ways to enforce said law.

In practice, it rarely happens that a law gets adopted that is so opposed by one specific member state that it really becomes an issue. Member states usually manage to either water down laws they don't like, or they trade, saying that while they don't like this law, they vote in favor of it if they get something else in return. You can see it, as the vast majority of cases where countries do not comply with EU law are resolved before the Commission is allowed to fine them.

Now as for Spain or Greece, if they don't like the conditions laid out for their economic support, thats fine. They can leave the EU at any moment. Or they can ignore the conditions, in which case they don't get the help they need. No need to fine them some more, we can just close the valve and let them go down and they know that. Also, I'm not sure if the Commission is technically capable of fining them because I'm not sure if these bailout packages and the conditions on which they get them are actually considered EU law.

They can't afford to, they need future bailouts.

Greece maybe, but Spain already left the bailout program.

They know we don't want millions of their refugees, which humanitarily, we would have to deal with. We should not have let them in in the first place, they are liabilities.

What refugees? They aren't third world countries. Besides, Spain was the only country in Europe that actually followed the guidelines of the original growth and stability pact. Its financial crisis was purely the result of 'guilt by association' which once again proves that financial markets can ruin countries even if they are financially healthy.

What I am sure of is that all these Eastern European countries are only banging on our door to be let in because they know they are unviable as stand alone countries, and can see the prospect of free bailouts in the future. Look at this map of Europe.

And you would be utterly wrong in your assessment. Those countries wanted to join Europe because they see it as where they belonged in the first place. Furthermore, when they wanted to join, the whole idea of bailouts didn't even exist as it has never happened before. Furthermore, those supposedly free bailouts came at a cost, namely complying to the Copenhagen criteria. Meaning having a functioning free market economy, a stable and functioning state with all the relevant state institutions, adopting the entire acquis communtaire (aka, every EU regulation ever) and making sure that those rules were followed. I know, you might not believe it, but those Eastern States only came in after the European Commission gave them the green light.

In reality, they don't need our 'free bailouts' because economically they are doing just fine.

That whole strip of countries from North to South bordering Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, are still basically Russian Satellite States, and Russia is welcome to them. Going from the South West eastwards, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece are just financial liabilities. They only survive on tourism, and there ain't any of that around in a world recession.

Except that THEY don't want to be part of Russia because I dont know, lets say 50 years of Soviet terror. As for those Southern states only running on tourism, you are again blatantly wrong. Sure, tourism is a large sector in those countries, but they also have a significant industrial and agricultural sector. And Italy is not just a tiny economy with a population of almost 60 million people and a nominal GDP of 2.148 trillion (in comparison, the nominal GDP of the UK is 2.490 trillion). The facts clearly show that Italy is actually one of the larger European economies.

It seems to me you hold some extremely simplistic prejudices and negative stereotypes against Eastern and Southern Europeans.

I would vote for the dissolution of the EU as it stands at the moment, and get rid of Brussels control. I would then start up a brand new EEC and restrict Membership to the UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Denmark, Lihuania, and probably Albania. The obvious ones I haven't mentioned are Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and the ex Yugoslav states of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia. They would have to prove their worth to join.

Albania? Why would you want an economic union with Albania before having states like Poland or the Czech Republic join it. Besides, those states that are supposed to prove their worth in your eyes are in nearly all cases already deemed worthy or they wouldn't have joined the EU back in 2004.

You wouldn't want to do business with a company that might cease trading during the contract, so why do it with Countries?

Again the prejudices and stereotypes. Stop acting like those countries are a bunch of backstabbing criminals who are only here for the free hand outs or come with some actual evidence to substantiate such a claim. Really, this type of nonsense belongs in the same category as the idea that Western Europe would be flooded by a tidal wave of Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants.

I also remember Little Rock in Arkansas in 1957, where black students were initially prevented from entering the racially segregated school by Orval Faubus, the Governor of Arkansas using the Arkansas National Guard. Eisenhower sent in federal troops to enforce integration, the 101st Airborne Division. The entire 10,000-member Arkansas National Guard was Federalised, taking it out of the hands of Faubus.

Then again the American Civil war was all about black slavery, and behind the scenes nothing much has changed in the south, with the KKK still there.

Very good. Ike knew a thing or two about troops, as you Europeans know perfectly well.

However, your view of the South (of which I am not a member, being a born and bred Yankee) is quite distorted. Not that they are a model of political correctness in the way that certain east coast and west coasts states are, but the days of the KKK are long gone, even if they are still there (so are the Nazis and Commies in various parts of the country for that matter). That is why Europeans don't get it about the U.S. We have something for everyone, and it is hard for outsiders to understand what is really going on.

---

Not at all, just looking at history and being realistic. And also taking notice of economic experts that know far more than I do, that consider certain countries present financial risks. Some may have left the bailouts, how long before they queue up again?

From a historic point of view, how often has it occurred that those countries needed bail outs?

As for economic experts, there are non. I know economists like to pretend that what they do is actually a science, but so far they have achieved remarkably little. And they are especially lacking in the field of making accurate predictions. So, rely on them all you want, just realize you might as well go to a Tarot card reader for your economic predictions and you are probably just as well off.

Hardly ever since the EU was set up, but regularly since there has been a world recession, when they are found wanting in being able to cope. I disagree with what you have said previously, and I state again, that countries with unstable political regimes that rely primarily on tourism, will always be in a precarious position, and be the first casualties in any downturn.

A country does not get a nominal GDP of almost the same size as the UK by relying mostly on tourism. Your assertion that those countries rely wholly on tourism is unfounded nonsense and in all cases shows a complete misunderstanding of what actually caused the crisis. In Greece and Italy it were the out of control spending habits of the Government coupled with an inefficient economy. In the case of Ireland and Spain it were housing bubbles that burst, dragging the banks (and the economy) with them. In no case is either crisis the result of tourists not coming over and spending their money.

Furthermore, I wouldn't say that Spain, Portugal or Ireland have unstable regimes. They are fully functioning democracies.

Also, I would like to see what remains of the UK once the financial markets feel its profitable to speculate the pound and the UK as a whole into a deep recession. See how long you guys can manage when you lose your good credit rating and the interest on your loans goes up to 7%. I've said it before, no country is safe from the financial markets.

Well there we have it folks, hear the gospel of Мишель. Only the true god is all knowing and wise. I bow at your feet oh exalted one.

Everyone can call themselves an expert if they need to be as good at predicting stuff as economists. Really, with their failure rate its more surprising that we still bother to keep those economists around.

Besides, if your economic expert friends have told you that those southern European countries rely wholly on their tourism sector, they really are worthless experts because that is demonstratively wrong. Again, Italy wouldn't have a nominal GDP of 2 trillion if it relies so much on tourists.

From a historic point of view, how often has it occurred that those countries needed bail outs?

Hardly ever since the EU was set up, but regularly since there has been a world recession, when they are found wanting in being able to cope. I disagree with what you have said previously, and I state again, that countries with unstable political regimes that rely primarily on tourism, will always be in a precarious position, and be the first casualties in any downturn.

As for economic experts, there are non

Well there we have it folks, hear the gospel of Мишель. Only the true god is all knowing and wise. I bow at your feet oh exalted one.

Again suggest you stay away from the Wiki and do some real research.

---

Besides, if your economic expert friends have told you that those southern European countries rely wholly on their tourism sector, they really are worthless experts because that is demonstratively wrong. Again, Italy wouldn't have a nominal GDP of 2 trillion if it relies so much on tourists.

As a small economic aside, there is nothing wrong with tourism to earn foreign exchange. You are in effect having your customers come to your country (at their own expense) to buy your scenery, history, culture, food, etc. You don't have to pay the shipping costs, and don't have to build a navy to guard the trade routes. It is a good deal if you can do it. One potential problem is that as economic times get tough, tourism may be one of the first expenses to be cut, but there are risks to any other product as well, so you need to diversify some too.

End of lesson. You may get back to your diatribe.

Has anyone thought about Economy and Finance into a thermodynamical perspective?

Who would design a system where the very same fluid acts as fuel, power transferring medium, reservoir matter, lubricant/coolant substance and final product?
Economists have done: Mammoney do that magic.
In this nigthmare machine energy rise from nowhere while work can be addressed to destruct itself.
Sadly none knows what kind of work the nigthmare machine is really doing: is it buying souls for the prince of world? Is it trading beauties, wishes, dreams and hopes for desperation lands?

One joule in Italy worth one watt by a couple of seconds while in Germany five hundreds milliwatts do the job in half the time; it's a new relativistic effect: energy is bending around massive public-debts.
Is it all an efficiency matter? Maybe.
Happens also a 20 euro note to appear blue in the Netherlands and gray in Italy; Credit Rating Agencies have "magic glasses" to have the trick done.
Even more prodigiously financial markets never speculate the pound, the only currency to have the very best of two worlds. It can jump on the back of the dollar or keep in touch with the euro as the wind change. It's the proud standard of the mighty financial speculation headquarters homeland.

Yes we have to cry, in Italy the insane spending habits of the Government coupled with an (relatively) inefficient economy had ignited the blaze. But international speculation has feeded the reaction. Our public-debt interest are making large groups of persons getting more and more rich: someone of them have not worked a mere hour in their life.

At the same time lot of people are feeding the Beast with their stolen earnings. Is that all a matter of efficiency?
Maybe, maybenot.

---

IZ3ATV

I read on the BBC world news website before work that the EU will take the UK to court for not following its emission standards. Seems you Brits have to many diesels fogging up the air.
Better watch out for those big EU fines heading your way.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Well if we are breaking EU rules on emissions then I think we should pay.

LMAO

---

[/quote]

Old James

Why is that amusing? Most people seem to think that we have far too many heavy lorries belching out fumes anyway, when a lot of the freight could go back on the railways where it once came from. Isn't this all about some measurements taken at specific points on some motorways that said the quality of the local air was below standards?

Its amusing as that you have been spouting that you as an indivual and as a nation should get out of the EU.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Its amusing as that you have been spouting that you as an indivual and as a nation should get out of the EU.

Sorry you are wrong. I have always said that while it benefits us to stay in we should do, and when it doesn't we should come out. I also said that I would put up with us being in while we are. I voted for an EEC not an EU.

I don't spout, I comment, so stop being mischievous, or I'll slap you with a soggy Daily Mail :-))

LOL, How thick is that thing? If ts like the New York Times, That bad boy would hurt.

---

[/quote]

Old James