Europe's charter for bureaucracy

Sabastian

Regular
I found this article interesting, IIRC we had a similar debate here with regards to the new European constitution.

Yet Europe's politicians are notably failing to tackle these deep-seated and fundamental problems. Indeed, at the recent European Union summit in Greece, they unanimously agreed to make most of these problems worse by adopting a new Constitution for the European Union that will actually entrench some of the policies causing them.

For instance, the draft constitution will establish a European Bill of Rights. As commentator Iain Murray points out, however, whereas the U.S. Bill of Rights restrains the federal government, its European imitator confers vast and dangerously vague powers on the EU's centralized bureaucracy. It does so by granting what are misleadingly called "positive" rights -- i.e., the right to a job, the right to a "free job placement service" and a whole wish list of labour union demands.

These rights would give the Brussels bureaucracy free license to intervene across the continent to regulate and re-regulate its already sclerotic labour market. One leading German politician lamented that if the constitution were adopted, it would make permanent the very regulations that are slowing down the German economy -- and which even Germany's socialist chancellor is now seeking to amend or repeal.

Any notion of democratic control by the citizenry is rendered still more difficult by two further factors. First, the constitution is almost flagrantly undemocratic -- the only body that can propose and initiate legislation is the unelected EU Commission. In effect, this body of 30 commissioners, all appointed by governments like ordinary bureaucrats, would wield an "advance veto" on new laws. The most that the European "parliament" can do is to reject those commission proposals that it doesn't like. Voters cannot throw the rascals out because they don't choose them in the first place.

In short, the constitution gives the new European state more powers to regulate the lives of its citizens while making it virtually impossible for those citizens to control the actions of the government through the traditional democratic process. This is a charter for bureaucracy. What is proposed is not a people's Europe but a politicians' Europe.

It might be supposed, therefore, that the politicians would be unable to persuade their voters to accept it -- and The Economist magazine, usually a strong supporter of European integration, has called on them either to radically amend the draft or throw it out altogether. But the politicians are very unlikely to do either -- because they are afraid that if they unpick even a single strand of the carefully agreed draft, the entire thing would unravel. And because it is, after all, a politicians' Europe.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=0D419A96-F4B3-48F4-901B-A4DC96D55150
 
Regrettably I must agree, EU nice in theory ... sucks in practice (of course with globalization in full steam I dont know if the alternative of solitary economies would have been any better).

In principle I see no problem with a right to a job though, there are always enough tasks which are usefull but make no economic sense ... and welfare isnt going to go away. Ive never seen what would be so wrong with subsidized jobs for those who want it, and standardized room and board for those who dont (aka poor houses). Seems more sensible as welfare, if you can find a way to not make unfair competition a serious problem. Even the amount of buraucracy needed isnt a huge problem, those are just part of the subsidized jobs ;)
 
MfA said:
Regrettably I must agree, EU nice in theory ... sucks in practice (of course with globalization in full steam I dont know if the alternative of solitary economies would have been any better).

Not likely the social democrats in power have same principles and they are the ones I believe making the charter for a united Europe.(I think) heh, basically we agree.

MfA said:
In principle I see no problem with a right to a job though, there are always enough tasks which are usefull but make no economic sense ... and welfare isnt going to go away. Ive never seen what would be so wrong with subsidized jobs for those who want it, and standardized room and board for those who dont (aka poor houses). Seems more sensible as welfare, if you can find a way to not make unfair competition a serious problem. Even the amount of buraucracy needed isnt a huge problem, those are just part of the subsidized jobs ;)

Don't know if I fully agree with the positive right for a job. This is a complex dilemma if you are not responsible for your own well being then the state is, I think this gives the state too much interventionist power. If individuals are not responsible for their own well being then someone will make them be in the end. I don't look at unemployment as wasted labor, in fact I see that perspective as a potential viewpoint that could well lead to some sort of welfare slavery. Should someone not want employment but still have social security how would the state deal with these people?
 
Social democratic rule is nice for balance, they have flipped coins with the christian democrats and liberal democrats (liberal over here has a meaning closer to libertarian, unlike what the word has become in the US). The way it worked out in my country wasnt so bad IMO.

I answered your last question already, subsidized jobs for those who want to work (aka. freely disposable income) and room and board for those who dont (aka. previous posessions confiscated and primary living requirements supplied by the state). This can be done in graduated stages if necessary, but I think lack of freedom would convince most to work. The kids of people in poor houses would need preferential treatment compared to the parents.

Not a new idea obviously.
 
MfA said:
Social democratic rule is nice for balance, they have flipped coins with the christian democrats and liberal democrats (liberal over here has a meaning closer to libertarian, unlike what the word has become in the US). The way it worked out in my country wasnt so bad IMO.

I answered your last question already, subsidized jobs for those who want to work (aka. freely disposable income) and room and board for those who dont (aka. previous posessions confiscated and primary living requirements supplied by the state). This can be done in graduated stages if necessary, but I think lack of freedom would convince most to work. The kids of people in poor houses would need preferential treatment compared to the parents.

Not a new idea obviously.

Err, right. Anyhow I got to go to work. Nice debating with ya. I think that there are problems with the above prescription but I don't have any more time for this.
 
Only problem is, some people don't work because they don't want to, not because they can't find jobs. I don't object to "workfare" as much as I do to "welfare" however. I do however object to calling it a "right". I'd call it a privilege or an entitlement, but it is not a fundamental human right.
 
Sounds good in theory right? Now what happens if a country has an unemployment rate of 40%. Where is the government going to find jobs for those people?

Thats right, they have to create artificial spots, and/or make public a lot of business that is better left in the private sector.

France is a good example of how that goes terribly wrong. Consider that once upon a time, 80% of the subway transportation staff went on strike. Amusingly the service was completely unnaffected, and saw absolutely no delays or schedule change of any kind.

Other example. The french airline service. One of the biggest bureacratic clouts in the history of public transportation. Also one of the airlines with the most money being pumped in, yet perpetually overbudget and in debt for a service that is decidedly less active than private companies like Delta.

A simple entitlement like that, can unintuitively create a gigantic innefficient beast like much of Europe's economies.
 
Guys, uniting Europe is a very slow process and it is going to take a long time.

As a matter of fact there're a lot of issues entangled with direct European democracy. Some countries would like to have more power and to be included in club of the big ones (Germany, France, U.K., etc...) , though they don't have enough population (Spain, Poland). Small countries (Austria, ...) are afraid of being neglected. Thus some governments don't want direct representation.

A majority of people still don't the feel European and feel talked down upon from Brussels, which is not the case. There's no sense of community and of togetherness.

But time's gonna change that. I strongly believe that people will notice not only downsides but also the benefits in personal life; e.g.: 11 countries have the same currency, that is quite convenient in your holidays; another example is universitarian mobility, which has been nuissance before: Now it is really easy to study abroad...; Common solidarity in trade issues is another benefit: Who would have cared in America, if Britain retaliated alone in the steel issue, but an economy of 350 million people that sure makes a difference...
Who would have thought in 1950 that France, Germany and the U.K. will build a jet fighter togehter?

The European Union is not going to change overnight, so don't expect revolutions, but it is slowly evolving...
 
Fred said:
Sounds good in theory right? Now what happens if a country has an unemployment rate of 40%. Where is the government going to find jobs for those people?

Thats right, they have to create artificial spots, and/or make public a lot of business that is better left in the private sector.

France is a good example of how that goes terribly wrong. Consider that once upon a time, 80% of the subway transportation staff went on strike. Amusingly the service was completely unnaffected, and saw absolutely no delays or schedule change of any kind.

Other example. The french airline service. One of the biggest bureacratic clouts in the history of public transportation. Also one of the airlines with the most money being pumped in, yet perpetually overbudget and in debt for a service that is decidedly less active than private companies like Delta.

A simple entitlement like that, can unintuitively create a gigantic innefficient beast like much of Europe's economies.

Sorry to say that fred but i dont know where you have read that and it s pure BS in both case :)

Air France is one of the rate Euroepan comapny to make profits actually and in fact just bought KLM.

And if our railway company went on strike, you will see it trust me :)

You better stick to what you know and not about urban legends.
 
A right to a job? What the...


Nothing like protecting the stupid/lazy people so they can breed. It kinda all adds up when you think about france.
 
Nice Patrick, except I was living in Paris when the metro went on strike. It was about 4 years ago, so sorry that you didn't hear about it.

SNCF goes on strike like once every three years anyway. Last year it was what, the proffessors and the spectacle workers (who despite having the largest compensation of any civilized country, still were upset they had to work more hours in order to receive what 7 months free pay?). In America, its called getting a second job.
 
Hhe a gov that stands idle with 40% unemployeent wont be a gov for long. Social engineering is vital today. You can fantasize all you want about self reliance which is part of the human expereince in society but its not the only thing. We all work in teams and groups of various sizes and we relinquish a certain level of rights and responsibilites to the group so as to facilitate the functioning of our extremely complex world...

About the EU constitution its like any bureaucracy for large countries and groups of countries. The only diff is the rules we find in the EU constitution covers the kind of ground regulations at other levels in other countries cover to a certain extent. You can harp it enshrines too many rights at too high a level but with the kind of unemployemtn they have (especially in the east) they have no choice but to have interventionaist gov.

I cant think of depression era usa without the new deal. Gov shitted its pants when it saw how many went out of work fo so long... Plenty reasons to shit too. Revolutions are never pretty things... how matter how Hollywood romanticizes about them.
 
I dont understand what are the backup plans for the economy and right to jobs if there is no demand... another major crash in the World Economy and bang mass unemployment country to country.. what happens then? Do the EU ditch current plans. As far as I understood in Britain at least everyone does have the right to be employed and I can't think of a European country off the top of my head where this is not the case. It just sounds... so... pointless and a complete waste of money. These European bureacrats ain't doing too badly for themselves last time I checked.

Also forcing some of the social reforms on countries is not good for all regions. Different regions and different cultures operate in different ways. Not everyone likes ice cream ya know. A policy in one country that works successfully may not work at all in another country.

Whilst I agree that women and ethnic minorities are underpriviliged in the workforce at times, I also believe that it still should be a policy of the right person for the right job. I can imagine a time where large companies are going to be forced to employ a percentage of female workers, ethnic workers etc. for 'equality.' Equality doesnt work like that IMO. That's just a recipe for a major disaster.

P.S. I am pro Europe because it is an inevitablity in the long term (next 20 years) that Britain will become more active WRT EU the Euro etc so they might as well get in on the act sooner rather than later when it is too late to change EU policies.

Edit: typo
 
Its always harsh when reading up bureaucracies or laws... But like any set of rules anywhere its the extent of the application of those rules which will determine success of the EU. That layer of government is pretty slight so far and Ive no reason to think that Europe with its flexible social democratic roots wont be flexible in their part of managing the super state...

Even the US constitution constanttly comes up in front of the courts and debated everywhere. If the system was inflexible once written down we wouldnt have the freedom to debate and reinterpret what was writ down as time went on.
 
pax said:
You can fantasize all you want about self reliance which is part of the human expereince in society but its not the only thing. We all work in teams and groups of various sizes and we relinquish a certain level of rights and responsibilites to the group so as to facilitate the functioning of our extremely complex world...

There is a difference here that needs to be pointed out. When one relinquishes control to groups and organizations one does so willingly with his explicit consent; whatever may come is his responsibility since it arose out of his volition.

On the other hand, one is born vassal to a state appartus to which one never gave consent. The closest analogy here would be the slave born into a plantation. Since I haven't given any form of permission whatsoever to the state to rule me, they have no moral right to do so. Read Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" on the Internet.
 
Well I do think europe is a democracy. But like I said if very unpopular laws are passed its very easy in a democracy to have them changed. Also I dont think we can draw the conclusion that whats going is in anyway akin to slavery...

When you say you havent given the state a right to rule you. You mean you havent voted?
 
ByteMe said:
A right to a job? What the...


Nothing like protecting the stupid/lazy people so they can breed. It kinda all adds up when you think about france.

You deserve a ban for that comment and I'm not even French ...
 
Back
Top