It seems the weakness of the EU system is that its terms are contractual and not decided every so often by elected representatives. So terms that were agreed to without foresight about current situations may be used to do things the original sign-ers didn't think would happen.
Ugh this is getting confusing.

The problems is that EU and especially EU Central Bank are constantly going over what is allowed by the eu contracts. One of things I said before about Greece, Spain and also I forgot Italy was true. Elected leaders in Spain, Greece and Italy were removed by EU Central Bank and International Monetary Fund with agreement of the European Union (The so called Troika) and replaced by others. Sure that was in time of deepest financial crisis in Europe but no international organiziation should have power to remove elected leaders.

Sure liberals will say its all fake news, alternate facts cause they don't want to face the reality that eu is not working as it should. And now you have the movement led by german chancellor and french president intent on splitting eu in two divided sections the so called europe of two speeds. Basically leaving the south and eastern european countries behind.

In my library, I have a book the El Quinon real estate project in Sesena which ended up as a big brand new ghost town like we see in China. I might read the book this week-end and make a summary but I guess that a Spaniard would have a better insight on this.
His part about national budgets having to be approved by the Commission is right as it's a part of the "growth and stability pact". We hear about it each year when our government has to set up its budget.
http://www.lesoir.be/1045823/article/actualite/fil-info/fil-info-belgique/2015-11-17/budget-2016-approuve-par-commission-europeenne

Exactly their is countless talk about budget issues and European Union affects on it on Slovene tv. And also countless talk about EU policies we have to enact as laws, etc. I haven't made aynthing up. Its all as its seen and talked about here in this country.

Some ironic fact about Brexit is that the party that fought hardest for it, UKIP, will also lose most by it, maybe even everything. They have more MEPs (members of the EU parliament) than MPs (of which they have none, despite being the third largest party by votes). The reason is the peculiarity of the British voting system. And now that Brexit happened their main reason for existence has vanished. Given the voting system there is not much chance for them to score big next time. They are mostly a copy of Tories anyway.

So they are quite popular, third biggest party, nevertheless never really took part in the political decision making, achieved their biggest goal ... and will very probably vanish soon.

I think you more or less accurately describe what happended. Everyone probably has a slightly different angle about things like whos fault it was. Was it the banks who lent too much money or was it the governments who spent too much or something else? Also the possible remedies were heavily disputed. Some say that continueing spending is just kicking the can down the road and will not solve the problem at all, while others say that too strong austerity can even be contraproductive and some just want to continue no matter what.

So maybe indeed there was no good solution. Oh wait. There must be one, if only we can gather enough will to change enough things. Like collecting more taxes (from the rich), spending less (except on the poor), decrease taxes (on lower incomes), improve regulations (on financial services for example), help investments, fight corruption... But can you realistically expect such smart and brave actions from politicians?

Far too little of that really took place.

No you can't (btw. even less from populists because they don't think long term). The chances for avoiding the high youth unemployment were relatively small, because people weren't and still aren't smart enough to stand and vote for the right things. End of story. Or what could one possibly add?

Warning: text wall.

Version for lazybones: Brexit and the EU are all but simple. Most staunch positions are less rational than emotional. Also, they are affected by bias (useful since it frees you from thinking)

Peace.

When asking about Brexit and the European Union, you have to be aware that it is a rather loaded issue, that triggers strong emotional responses (emotional meaning non-rational). Plus, these issues are being manipulated politically, resorting to these emotional loads. Propaganda abounds. Facts are often ignored, or lied about, or grossly exaggerated, or submitted only partially (which probably makes the worst lies).

Also, when half a country is of an opinion, for sure there must be a reason for that. Do they understand each other? Still, they both have their reasons and a part ot the truth.

To get in the right frame of mind, think of this as a divorce. Think of Romeo and Giulietta's nieces getting married in an attempt to make peace between their devastated families, Capulettos and Montescos. Only that this was more of a group marriage (did you ever watch Big Love?).

Can you imagine? "Your parents...!" "Yes, but your parents...!" "You are always so insensitive" "I gave up my promising career in ventriloquism just because of you!" "Your lips moved terribly, to begin with!"

To get along with the comparison, the history of feuds between Capulettos and Montescos is, well, European history. The Shakespearean tragedy is, then, World War II. It is after this that six European countries, formerly in different sides in the world wars (and so many conflicts before that), got together with the aim of putting an end to European wars (with Italy having been in different sides in the two world wars, like a sort of Mystique, of X-Men fame). You can read the Schuman declaration (1950) here. Think of a continent devastated by war, with hunger and deprivation. A continent that had suffered the worst war ever, and promised not to repeat it again, only to make it even worse next time.

The intention was, from the beginning, having stronger and stronger ties, between them, so that they shared resources and enjoy the many benefits of peace. No war, no commerce war either. The first agreement was full of resonance with all involved: they agreed to share steel and coal in a common, open market. The struggle for these resources had been a source of tensions between between France and Germany in the XIX and XX centuries, since they were basic for the economies of that time. And then it had simply vanished. More was to come. The professed goal, besides ensuring peace, were creating a sphere of freedom and security (social also) for citizens, while achieving economical prosperity, complementing their economies better.

You may wonder which countries were involved: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Louxembourg and Netherland. It was 1957. Yes, UK was not there. They joined much later, in 1973. The French government (famously de Gaulle) had staunchily oppossed their joining to the club (as you know, no more de Gaulle in 1973).

Decision making. How? Basically (there is more, like the Parliament, but get along with this for now!), the European Council (national heads of State and government) and the Council (national governments). Up to 2009, when the Treaties of LIsbon (signed in 2007) came into force, all decisions had to be unanimous. All had to agree. Since the member countries realized that continous nitpicking made the decision making more difficult, all of them agreed to change to a weighted voting system. There are two systems, actually, the one that requires simple majority (with each country having a single vote) is really limited to very few issues. The vast majority of issues, including always those that are more important, are decide by the qualified majority system, wich includes safeguards. Nowadays the safeguard is the double majority rule: in order to pass any motion, it is required a 55% of the member countries, and also those countries must represent at least the 65% of the total population in the European Union.

In the European Council (heads of State and heads of government) decisions are taken by consensus. This involves the general direction and the political priorities of the EU, while the Council (governments) takes care of the details (very broadly explained). The treaty of Lisbon especifies that there are exceptions to this, but still there is a strong tradition of achieving a consensus always. For example, the recent decision of keeping the president of the European Council (a Pole) against the sole opposition of the Polish government--a political opponent at home--has been groundbreaking since such a thing had never happened. This with the Polish governing party labelled a far-right one, with a background of such parties rising in Europe and much concern for all, their supporters and their opponents--which is the background of the Brexit and the USA election for many, but enough with lowly politics.

Each decision taken can be modified or abolished by another decision. This includes modifying the Treaties.

Also two principles in the treaties are key: subsidiariety and proportionality. The first is really the cornerstone of the European constructions: it means that decisions will never be taken at the EU level when they are better taken of by the national governments on their own. Thus, some matters are never ruled about, while most that are, come in the form of Directives. Directives point out goals to achieve, agreed by the Council (which, as you remember, means the national governments) and the European Parliament (freely elected). Then, national governments are to take their own measures to achieve those goals.

Hopefully this gives you a broad view of how the EU works.

There is more, but especially there are also some less evident dynamics. Like for example:

- Goverments agreeing on policies at the EU level that they think are required, then enforcing them at home saying "We have to do it because the EU says so." Result: the EU comes off as the bad guy. This happens all the time.

- Some countries appeased (as in "cash") because else... (UK), and then other countries requiring a lower participation in the appeasing effort than they ought to pull just because (Germany, Netherland, Austria and Sweden).

- A Cold War background during most of the European construction (that led to the EU), that gave a social and democratic (and arguably socialdemocratic) tint to the Club (=the European Union and the preceding organizations), with the Communist block next door.

- Traditionalist conservatives opposing expansions of the Club now and again (in France, UK, Norway, Sweden etc).

- Russian geopolitical interests as of the early XXI century (with some suspice of far reaching hands, deep grateful pockets, surprising allies).

- A discomfort of part of the European societies with the upholding of social standards by the EU.

- A discomfort of part of the European societies with a lack of upholding of social standards by the EU.

- Bias within the EU. North vs South.

- Bias pro allegedly technical, economical decisions that years later have been labelled more ideological and political than technical, and also inefficient. Decisions that were taken against the will of a large majority of the affected citizenry.

- A lack of social cohesion between countries and regions in EU (Norh vs South, but also East vs West, even within a country such as Germany--on a minor scale; also between urban and countryside populations). Measures have been taken, with partial success.

- A lack of political cohesion between countries in the EU, with some of them under arguably almost-authoritarian governments now (Hungary, Poland).

- As mentioned before, a present situation of rise of right-wing parties and what some label ghosts of the past. While many, supporters and opponents, agree that this is the result of what had been sown before--creating a state of things that makes democracies vulnerable, with lots of angry people who feel nobody pays attention to their issues--but this is a global (or Western) issue.

So, to sum it up: not simple, all but easy.

Did you know that some hospital services in London are kept by non-British EU citizens alone? Is that a good or a bad thing? Does freedom of movement mean a larger recruit pool for companies to find the best candidates? or an unemployment problem at home? Is a 5% rate of unemployment a very large problem? Are those 5% surgeons and doctors? Does it matter?

Also, just considering one fellow member country: Imagine 30.000 nationals of country X live in the UK. Then, 80.000 British live in X country. All use each other public healthcare freely. With the difference that public healthcare in X has a higher quality, and most UK residents in X are retired, elderly ones. Is that good, bad? Who does complain and why? Or it is a win for all? You can change the issues and the name behind the X varies.

Not easy. Everything is connected. An European government reduces scholarships for studying languages abroad. English schools in Britain have to close down.

Not easy.

For some, EU represents the dream of peace and freedom, for others, a great market. For some, a safe haven for refugees; for others, unwelcome inmigrants.

As always, the more you know, the less you know, but you know less better.

Peace.

Edit: Text wall warning added.

Yes, but that wasn't what I was commenting about. It was the claim the ECB has replaced some EU country governments with puppet governments.

I personally feel the problem is that the EU wide rules for budgets are only selectively followed, not that there are such rules in place. When e.g. France can't follow them, we start hearing these "Weeeell, of course the rules are not so strict, we have to look at it case by case...".

It is a bit like the EU sanctions towards Russia. Finnish food industry stopped selling stuff to Russia as per the sanctions, while e.g. France and Netherlands keeps selling stuff there, just circulating them via Belarus so that they are sold as "Belarus" products in Russia. And no one seems to care, they are allowed to do that because reasons.

Maybe it is different in different countries, but at least in Finland the politicians' hands are tied for the most part. The current goverment bravely tried to introduce steps to make the Finnish economy more competitive, but the union leaders said no, and outright said there will be a country-wide general strike if the government tries to step on their toes.

And it isn't the government anyway who e.g. decides about salaries, it is the unions here who negotiate about them.

In the end the government could only cut from social security somewhat, and try to make people in the public sector work a bit longer days (which doesn't help e.g. unemployed people at all). The true political power here is with the work unions, and they are interested only in looking after their own members, not e,g, the unemployed people.

Also as I recall, in France the leftist president has had quite hard time getting some economic reforms in place.


That is pure bullshit, no matter how many times you repeat it.

How come Syriza is still in power in Greece? Wasn't it elected in power by the Greeks? Are you claiming it was ECB who elected Syriza in power?

mmmm, I really would like a source article (whatever language, I'll googletranslate it) on France exporting to Russia via Belarus. Not that I don't trust you but maybe you talk about the food industry, meaning the "big players" and not the "little" French farmers because for this last category, the export restrictions are one of the many nails in their coffins.

Now it just got real; UK digs moat at EU border: http://www.the-postillon.com/2017/04/uk-to-dig-huge-moat.html#more

Whaaaaaaat? Outrageous! It's time to rebuild an old european project.

Trump is going to be very jealous.

Obviously you don't know anything about Greek crisis. The government before Syriza was installed by the ECB. In the next election that government was replaced by Syriza that wanted to get out of EU monetary union and reinstate their own currency drahma. The pressure from the people was so big that they wouldn't accept another dictated government by the Troika. Germany and several countries were ready to allow them to leave the monetary union. Then Donald Tusk by the authority of the EU personally physically blocked the departure of German Chanchellor and Greek prime minister from the last big greek debt meeting in Brussels (I was watching this live on tv!). EU then forced Germany in that meeting to finance greek debt and succeded in pressuring the greek prime minister to accept all conditions since they couldn't replace him without revolution in Greece. Since then he has been an EU lapdog accepting countless asterity messures destroying his country.

And why do I know all that? Cause we followed all the shit with Greece constantly since we were in the same shit then. And while we were in the shit we had to lend Greece 3.75% of our GDPs worth of money (300.000.000€) per order of the EU government. We never got that back! Thankfully we weren't forced to get help from the Troika tribunal since we managed to get a loan from the USA that did not destroy us economically like the EU loan to Greece.

You can think whatever you wan't but you live in a north country that was never touched by the hard hand of the European Union. Be lucky you don't live in the south!

That doesn't mean that I'm advocating for eu members countries to leave the union. In contrary eu needs reform and redemocratization, more transparency and decrease in bureacrucy. For us leaving the EU would be suicide since 80% of our exports go to Germany. We must and will stay in the Union but it doesn't meen that we should support current form of non democratic government.

Is that actually true? My understanding has always been that Syriza wants Greece to stay in the Euro (which imo is a bad idea..maybe it would be better if Greece left the Euro and got some sort of large-scale debt cut, but it may also be that there aren't any really good options).