What is EU really doing for us

[skag]

I'm bothered of all the anti-EU out there, which only whine about it, so I decided I'll give you some relevant examples to proove you what are the benefits of a centralisation, and a better cohesion, but this are not simply benefits, it has to be like that :

First : REACH project, I'll not explain you 850 pages of reglementation, so I give one youtube link which is well done, it's the biggest project EU ever made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cURiPGJDjSA

For making an abstract (even if it's hard making it for 850 pages), it implies ALL chemical substances. All industry using/selling a chemical product for making any kind of product (even your toilet papaer) , will have to register it at the EU, giving to EU all the informations and details about the danger the chemical product represents.
That means that you have now a very strong law that will result in a big decrease of Teratogeneous, mutageneous, cancerogeneous, etc substances in the market
Not only in the market, but also for chemist. We are the first ones being exposed to chemical substances, while there were no ing tests about what we were manipulating. (organical chemist have a "life time hope" of 10 years less than normal population, I don't know the exact term, but it's the average years we live, hoping before diyng)

etc
etc
etc The video will explain a lot better

Useless to precise that USA and China are whining about it because they will not be able anymore to export into EU dangerous substances for environment and mankind without being submitted to a strong reglementation. It's not a protectionist rule, as it affect everyone everywhere, even our own industries on our grounds.

For having more informations, you can have a 250pages abstract at the EU chemical agency website : http://echa.europa.eu/

Second : All the laws, quotas about emission of greenhouse gaz.

You had for sure good information about it, so useless to explain, you can still find more information at
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ which is the website of EU laws.

Third : I will not search and post you thousands of example, so you should go over here to have a general idea : this is a website where normal population can ask questions and where EU answers :
http://www.youtube.com/questionsforeurope


All of that to give an example of what something with a good cohesion can do.


You have to understand that you need a superior power for anykind of laws and projects, and simply rules for making YOUR country compatible with how the world works, the problems of the world, how you can try to solve them. Also, you need it simply for being compatible with all the MultiNationals, markets, industries etc.

Imagine your country says to Exxon Mobil : you are rejecting to much nitrogen oxydes, or you lower it, or you GTFO..... But your neighboor, 10 km farest, is more lax and accept such emission ... And the winds bring all the pollution to you (i would laugh a lot)

and i will : LOOOOL, It has NO ING SENSE.


It true you paye some taxes for it ?? TRUE TRUE; BUT !! you approximately pay 45% of your income in taxes, do you know what's the part of it who goes to EU ???? alost nothing. Obviously when you see numbers at the scale of the state you say to yourself : HEY the toke us, let's say 1 billion.... yeah but your country has let's say 100billion/year with taxes
You have population flows ?? True true

But how can you compare all the benefits your country receive directly, and indirectly from EU with the 5euros/month you give them ?? siply : you can't !!!

[Denny Crane!]

All of this can be done without expanding the EU into a superstate. So I'm not quite sure what the rambling diatribe was about, it seems you must fundamentally misunderstand most peoples anti EU sentiments.

[BNS]

Thank you for pointing out some more of it's bureaucratic intrusiveness and adding more fuel to the anti-EU fire.

[Exarch]

hey i'm all for the EU as a trade bloc, and if, if the EU citizens are allowed to vote on whether or not Lisbon/EU constituiton should be ratified then i got no problem with it.
we must allow for democrati process

[skag]

All of this can be done without expanding the EU into a superstate. So I'm not quite sure what the rambling diatribe was about, it seems you must fundamentally misunderstand most peoples anti EU sentiments.

Who spoke about superstate ?
I'm giving examples why cohesion is necessary in the good working of our countries.

Thank you for pointing out some more of it's bureaucratic intrusiveness and adding more fuel to the anti-EU fire.

Who give a about bureaucratic processes ? are you affected by it ?

hey i'm all for the EU as a trade bloc, and if, if the EU citizens are allowed to vote on whether or not Lisbon/EU constituiton should be ratified then i got no problem with it.
we must allow for democrati process

What the lisbon treaty has to do with what I'm pointing out ?
Also, these are example, and there are a lot others in the links i gave who point out why it is good to do not be just a trade bloc

[Exarch]

What the lisbon treaty has to do with what I'm pointing out ?

because it's become more and more apparent that the EU is not just a trade bloc anymore but something moving in the area of a suprastate, not a confederacy.\

Also, these are example, and there are a lot others in the links i gave who point out why it is good to do not be just a trade bloc

some britons would object to having to subsisize eastern europeans' economies

[Denny Crane!]

All of this can be done without expanding the EU into a superstate. So I'm not quite sure what the rambling diatribe was about, it seems you must fundamentally misunderstand most peoples anti EU sentiments.

Who spoke about superstate ?
I'm giving examples why cohesion is necessary in the good working of our countries.

All of the cohesion and other things that happen that are beneficial from the EU could be done without the centralisation aspects or state aspects.

Anyone I know who doesn't like the EU, please tell me if you know differently or have other examples, is the idea that they begin to function not as economic unions breaking down barriers and providing a few essential services but its constant expansion into other areas.

Or were you just ranting randomly?

[Fishy]

All of the cohesion and other things that happen that are beneficial from the EU could be done without the centralisation aspects or state aspects.

Anyone I know who doesn't like the EU, please tell me if you know differently or have other examples, is the idea that they begin to function not as economic unions breaking down barriers and providing a few essential services but its constant expansion into other areas.

Or were you just ranting randomly?

I do agree that the EU as it is now is pretty useless. It's expanding into area's it has no bussines in being. It's making life harder on many people while spending to much money on worthless projects and countries that don't need. While spending to much and not controling enough where other money goes.

Which is why the EU should reform. But the EU it self is an incredibly useful and in my opinion important tool in the world. Without the EU Europe will likely just get weaker and weaker over time. The influence of Europe has dropped heavily since WWII and will just continue to drop as other nations grow more powerful and can do more. A more unified Europe and several important things like: foreign policy, military, money (euro), energy and polution laws can do a hell of a lot more then all of our nations individually.

Many things would have to change for that however and I don't see it happening any time soon or at all really because of just the sheer amount of nations in the EU and their veto rights. Still I believe that the EU is executed properly is far more useful to all European countries then there indepence in all those areas will ever be.

[skag]

All of the cohesion and other things that happen that are beneficial from the EU could be done without the centralisation aspects or state aspects.

Anyone I know who doesn't like the EU, please tell me if you know differently or have other examples, is the idea that they begin to function not as economic unions breaking down barriers and providing a few essential services but its constant expansion into other areas.

Or were you just ranting randomly?

I'm sorry but i don't understand what you are meaning. (and i don't know what ranting means)

No, such things could not happen without centralisation, or at least, they would take to much time for being ratified ... Imagine a 850 pages project to be ratified without ANYKIND of super organisation, between more than 20 countries, almost IMPOSSIBLE.

That's why I'm saying that EU needs to grow, not specially in number of countries, but must grow in his intra-, EU needs more cohesion, in a lot of aspects, and most of all : laws, treaties, foreign politics, reglementations.

[2-D Ron]

Who spoke about superstate ?
I'm giving examples why cohesion is necessary in the good working of our countries.



Who give a about bureaucratic processes ? are you affected by it ?



What the lisbon treaty has to do with what I'm pointing out ?
Also, these are example, and there are a lot others in the links i gave who point out why it is good to do not be just a trade bloc

Allot of the Politicians didn't read thoroughly enough into the Lisbon Treaty and that's just clear sign that they can't really give us a truthful reason why the Lisbon Treaty would be good for us?
Not to mention that we can't deal with Criminals our own way because the EU controls that part of my Countries system of Law.

I'm Pro-EU and i'm starting to have my doubts it can function with all the differing Cultures.

+rep to the OP.

"Hitler's plan was EU" say what?
Total, complete and utter falsification of History. Hitler wanted a Pan-Germania slaver NAZIs over subhumans, NOT an EU.

EU is the exact opposite of Hitler's or Napoleons' ambitions (granted that Napoleon's ambition looks like a fairy tale, when you put the death camps of the NAZI into the equation, but still the only comparison between them is that both tried to conquer and unify europe through force of arms). EU is the reason why nobody like them will ever be around so long as EU exists. EU is the reason why there won't be a third WW starting because of territorial differences between Germany and France. EU, as the OP stated, is dedicated to its citizens having the right to live without something toxic interfering with their lives, causing death and anguish.

(See what melamine did to the Chinese kids? Can you imagine a baby dead from kidney stones? )

It's what keeps me Pro-EU that we will never see those dark days again.

[Tiberios]

hey i'm all for the EU as a trade bloc, and if, if the EU citizens are allowed to vote on whether or not Lisbon/EU constituiton should be ratified then i got no problem with it.
we must allow for democrati process

Exactly. The people's of Europe should vote on this. As it is now the EU is fine.

[Chlodwig I.]

The only Problem with EU is that it is undemocratic and is ignoring its own principles more and more decisions who should be made on lowest (city/region level) are somehow took to the EU-Commison (highest decision making level)

So the EU is a good idea but somehow the burocreacy of the EU is becoming a Monster that is eating the people instead of feeding them.

[Darsh]

The only Problem with EU is that it is undemocratic and is ignoring its own principles more and more decisions who should be made on lowest (city/region level) are somehow took to the EU-Commison (highest decision making level)

So the EU is a good idea but somehow the burocreacy of the EU is becoming a Monster that is eating the people instead of feeding them.

That's the reason why we need the Lisbon treaty to reduce the enormous EU bureaucracy and to improve the working of the EU institutions.

[roy34543]

Not everyone supports chemicals being banned,like me i know a person who swears that food colouring is deadly for you, and if that person was in the chemical commision she would ban food colouring in a second.
Does that mean I think food colouring is bad too?or that becaue tests might indicate it has a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing skin rash it should be banned? Theres such a thing as a free market and if I think that chemicals that have a remote chance of reducing my lifespan by a month but have other positive side effects then maybe there should be a free market that allows them to be there.
not saying there shouldnt be any regulation, stuff that kills instantly or within weeks should be banned, stuff that has absoloutly no positive affects should be banned . but what is a commitee to decide on the majority of chemicals? the free market should decide . People should vote with their wallets for the safest or best products.

Someday people will be paying three times what they should be for so-called organic foods because so many pesticides and things that help crop growth will be banned, these chemical commisions are genrally protectionist excuses to ban foreign products and get lobbied by enviromental and organic foo groups , they WILL become totally unreasonable and efficient over time, and someday you will notice your trading 3 more years of life and a lot more hard work for 3 times as many people starving,

Sure it has little to do with the EU, but i enjoy telling you why the example you gave is likely just a protectionist excuse and one that should not be supporteed anyway.

[skag]

Not everyone supports chemicals being banned,like me i know a person who swears that food colouring is deadly for you, and if that person was in the chemical commision she would ban food colouring in a second.
Does that mean I think food colouring is bad too?or that becaue tests might indicate it has a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing skin rash it should be banned? Theres such a thing as a free market and if I think that chemicals that have a remote chance of reducing my lifespan by a month but have other positive side effects then maybe there should be a free market that allows them to be there.
not saying there shouldnt be any regulation, stuff that kills instantly or within weeks should be banned, stuff that has absoloutly no positive affects should be banned . but what is a commitee to decide on the majority of chemicals? the free market should decide . People should vote with their wallets for the safest or best products.

Someday people will be paying three times what they should be for so-called organic foods because so many pesticides and things that help crop growth will be banned, these chemical commisions are genrally protectionist excuses to ban foreign products and get lobbied by enviromental and organic foo groups , they WILL become totally unreasonable and efficient over time, and someday you will notice your trading 3 more years of life and a lot more hard work for 3 times as many people starving,

Sure it has little to do with the EU, but i enjoy telling you why the example you gave is likely just a protectionist excuse and one that should not be supporteed anyway.

I'm sorry to tell you that, but you got all wrong. I'm a chemist, and I know a lot better than you what all this stuff is about.
Read the 850 pages before stipulating such things, or at least, read the 250 abstract, otherwise, don't judge this like that.
Becuase all you said is totally stupid.

The free market SHOULD NOT DECIDE.
You know why ? because if the market decides, you'll ban a product AFTER incident came.
Now, before putting it on market, you have to proove that there are almost no incident possible.
Super example : the painting used by chinese that affected childrens. the Arsenic tri- and pentaoxyde which has been prooved to be highly cancerogenous in all the siderurgy and killed hundreds of people. and there are thousands of example like that. You wanna decide after the problem comes ?? if you say so, it's totally stupid, I'd like to see how you would react if someone in your family died because of tumor due to chemical which has not been reglemented. I'm sure you would react like that : BAW BAW EU, it's their fault, thay have not made what it's better for protecting population BAW BAW. This is a totally stupid argument.

It has nothing to do with protectionism, you know what protectionism means ??? seems really you do not. This rules affect everyone in EU, and Europeans industries will be the first affected, as all other industries/laboratories on European grounds even if they are not European (example Exxon Mobil, which is from USA and have labs in Belgium). This rule is not giving any advantage to Eu's ones.

It has nothing to do with food, there are no food problems, what are you telling me about starvation LOL. Countries where people die because of lack of food is due to your free market, not pesticides, WTF it has to do with that, lol, BS.

So think a little before posting such things. Or at least get some informations

And btw, it's not one people who decides if the product have to be banned or not, but a whole commission AFTER the implicated industry gave a whole description of his product. So even if your friend was in that commission, and the colorant is in fact not dangerous, he can think whatever he wants, product will not be banned

[Adrian]

I'm bothered of all the anti-EU out there, which only whine about it, so I decided I'll give you some relevant examples to proove you what are the benefits of a centralisation, and a better cohesion, but this are not simply benefits, it has to be like that :

First : REACH project, I'll not explain you 850 pages of reglementation, so I give one youtube link which is well done, it's the biggest project EU ever made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cURiPGJDjSA

For making an abstract (even if it's hard making it for 850 pages), it implies ALL chemical substances. All industry using/selling a chemical product for making any kind of product (even your toilet papaer) , will have to register it at the EU, giving to EU all the informations and details about the danger the chemical product represents.
That means that you have now a very strong law that will result in a big decrease of Teratogeneous, mutageneous, cancerogeneous, etc substances in the market
Not only in the market, but also for chemist. We are the first ones being exposed to chemical substances, while there were no ing tests about what we were manipulating. (organical chemist have a "life time hope" of 10 years less than normal population, I don't know the exact term, but it's the average years we live, hoping before diyng)

etc
etc
etc The video will explain a lot better

Useless to precise that USA and China are whining about it because they will not be able anymore to export into EU dangerous substances for environment and mankind without being submitted to a strong reglementation. It's not a protectionist rule, as it affect everyone everywhere, even our own industries on our grounds.

For having more informations, you can have a 250pages abstract at the EU chemical agency website : http://echa.europa.eu/

Second : All the laws, quotas about emission of greenhouse gaz.

You had for sure good information about it, so useless to explain, you can still find more information at
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ which is the website of EU laws.

Third : I will not search and post you thousands of example, so you should go over here to have a general idea : this is a website where normal population can ask questions and where EU answers :
http://www.youtube.com/questionsforeurope


All of that to give an example of what something with a good cohesion can do.


You have to understand that you need a superior power for anykind of laws and projects, and simply rules for making YOUR country compatible with how the world works, the problems of the world, how you can try to solve them. Also, you need it simply for being compatible with all the MultiNationals, markets, industries etc.

Imagine your country says to Exxon Mobil : you are rejecting to much nitrogen oxydes, or you lower it, or you GTFO..... But your neighboor, 10 km farest, is more lax and accept such emission ... And the winds bring all the pollution to you (i would laugh a lot)

and i will : LOOOOL, It has NO ING SENSE.


It true you paye some taxes for it ?? TRUE TRUE; BUT !! you approximately pay 45% of your income in taxes, do you know what's the part of it who goes to EU ???? alost nothing. Obviously when you see numbers at the scale of the state you say to yourself : HEY the toke us, let's say 1 billion.... yeah but your country has let's say 100billion/year with taxes
You have population flows ?? True true

But how can you compare all the benefits your country receive directly, and indirectly from EU with the 5euros/month you give them ?? siply : you can't !!!

Just got a new wallpaper thanks I would rep you if I could.



As for the topic itself most of us I think already know the benefit and the cost of our lifestyles and secure living and its my opinion that the EU is necessary if Europe and the whole world indeed is to move forward the EU may pave the way for other similar organizations that will further human cooperation and understanding and bring civilization and rule of law to the world.

[Каие]

All of that can be done by national governments.

[skag]

All of that can be done by national governments.

That is false Rome, and you know it !!!!! I'm sadden you say such things, it's just bad faith !

Just look at the Kyoto treaty, the time required to achieve it, the time required for making all the countries agree, the time required for the countries to sign for it. That' a real good example, and that's simply a BS treaty

Making such rules would required too much time, and I'm sur it would not even be ever completed. Making more than 20 countries agree on such things is impossible.
And these are not BS rules, as they are respected, not like international conventions, like Kyoto.

BAD FAITH !!! is it possible to un-rep ?

[wilting]

All of that can be done by national governments.

It is being done by national governments. The Union is an intergovernmental organisation. Which is why is it is bureaucratic and undemocratic.

Regarding the Union expanding into areas which aren't necessarily covered by the treaties (or 'economic'; it's not the same thing), these things happen because of bottom up demand by lobby groups or legal action taken by citizens. I would point out again that this is a function of the Union's status as an intergovernmental organisation, with enormous mystical treaties. Clear, strict codification of powers is a federalist principle.

I don't like a lot of the policies at Union level, but I'm not one to condemn a whole organisation just because I dislike elements. I also recognise that these policies are a result of complex compromise between member states and real world political environment and influence. Furthermore, while I don't much like the institutions of the Union, I recognise that their evolution is part of a process much bigger than themselves, certainly more than the short-term issues of one generation, and especially of the extreme short term factors at work in discussing any individual treaty.

Seeing as Nationalist critics of the Union actually represent the viewpoints that create the problems in it in the first place, I have little time for them.

[Helm]

Better to have the national governments working together rather in isolation from each other seeing as we all live on the same continent.