|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Comparing two Unions: UK and EU
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
So, I went and started a discussion on the Andy Murray thread in Hell that would be better held here in Purgatory.
My initial point was I considered it inconsistent for people to be strongly Unionist in relation to the UK yet anti-Unionist in relation to Europe.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If there were no Scots in the British parliament, we would be permanently condemned to a Tory government. we need the Shortish labour votes to get a majority.
Given that most Tories are staunch Unionists, it's strange how people say this and then in the next breath claim that Tories are motivated solely by greed and self-interest.
Depends on which Union though, doesn't it? If we're talking about a Union of the once independent nations of England, Wales and Scotland (and, Northern Ireland which has a much more complex history and the Conservatives don't stand for election anyway) then the Tories get out their flags and wave them triumphantly. If we're talking about a Union with other nations in Europe ... well, then the flags disappear and the cheers turn to boos.
Nothing, I'm sure, with the fact that in a United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland the Conservative Party has a very strong chance of governing, and even when they narrowly miss the mark are a very strong opposition, and hence wield considerable power and influence over the regions of the Union who predominantly vote for other parties. But, in a Union with other European nations they'd be playing second fiddle in uneasy political alliances with nations who are not going to stand being bossed around by English Tories.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I can't see how one could possibly begin to compare the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Union.
Why not? OK, apart from the fact that the EU isn't a union ... but, could quite reasonably be so in the future.
The UK consists of four previously independent nations which had their own governments, their own currencies, their own languages and cultures (and, in most cases, regional variations in culture and language within each nation). Over a period of time each nation was assimilated into a Union where the national differences were slowly eroded, although recently through devolution some of those differences were re-established (albeit in different forms than before Union). In the case of Scotland, we've maintained our own legal and education systems and printed our own bank notes (legal tender south of the border).
A potential greater (in terms of stronger ties between current nations, rather than necessarily encompassing more nations) European Union could easily be envisaged. It would also take previously independent nation states with their own governments, languages and cultures (just as England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland had been before Union) - although now not their own currencies (except for the Brits).
The two scenarios seem entirely equivalent with the exception of scale. But, that's relative. In 1707 the effective distance between London and Edinburgh (eg: how much time and effort it took to get from one to the other) was far more than the equivalent effective distance between any major European city today. Which is why it seems bizarre to be in favour of maintaining a Union in Britain yet opposed to a Union in Europe.
A couple of the responses made before I decided we needed to move up here:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The UK consists of four previously independent nations which had their own governments, their own currencies, their own languages and cultures (and, in most cases, regional variations in culture and language within each nation). Over a period of time each nation was assimilated into a Union where the national differences were slowly eroded...
Yes, and many in Ireland, Wales and Scotland have never forgiven the English for doing it to them.
Now, if you were proposing an EU that happened along the same lines as the UK - with every other country becoming more and more like England over time - then I'd be far more in favour of it. But the reality is that England would just end up becoming more French and/or German.
Of course, I'm also in favour of Scottish independence. And Catalan independence. And Cornish independence, should they ever become serious about wanting it. IMO, when it comes to countries small is beautiful.
Which is a position I personally have considerable sympathy with. I would probably class myself as in favour of strong devolution, rather than independence, because I do think that there are some issues that need to be managed by a centralised government covering a much larger area. In many ways, I'd consider the current set up the worst of all possibilities - not enough local devolution, and a UK national government that is too small for the larger issues. Strong local devolution (to regions smaller than current nation states) with strong central government for the issues best covered by such a government covering all of Europe would be my ideal.
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The UK consists of four previously independent nations which had their own governments, their own currencies, their own languages and cultures (and, in most cases, regional variations in culture and language within each nation)...
I think that 'own government' may be overstating it a bit in the case of Wales. AIUI pre-Union Wales was a collection of local regimes which guarded their independence fiercely while simultaneously struggling to lord it over their neighbours, with relationships marked by intense parochialism, mistrust, and mutual backstabbing, and coming together only in opposition to the English. Whereas modern Wales is, um,....
I fliipently remarked in Hell that I hadn't said much about the form of government in Wales (and, Ireland was very similar for much of it's history) which was highly decentralised to the extent of barely being recognisable as a single nation. There's nothing, IMO, wrong about a highly decentralised government. The main point I was making is that it was a form of government very different to that of the English, and the Welsh system of government disappeared in the Union.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would probably class myself as in favour of strong devolution, rather than independence, because I do think that there are some issues that need to be managed by a centralised government covering a much larger area. In many ways, I'd consider the current set up the worst of all possibilities - not enough local devolution, and a UK national government that is too small for the larger issues.
I'm intrigued to learn which issues you think are too big for the current UK government to deal with properly, and why you think they need a continent-wide government to deal with them properly.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
This has often annoyed me - that the English (and it has mostly been English people) should not be 'ruled' by other nations, yet it's perfectly reasonable to rule other nations. Perhaps we should call it English Exceptionalism and have done with it.
I put 'ruled' in inverted commas because what we'd be doing wrt the EU is sharing authority, rather than giving it to someone else. For sure, the democratic institutions of the EU need reform, and subsidiarity needs to be rolled out across the union, so that neglected regions can at least attempt to order their affairs in a way that suits them vis strong central government.
To answer Marvin - pretty much the same raft of policies that the UK government won't devolve to the regions. Economic policy, defence, trade, human rights.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I put 'ruled' in inverted commas because what we'd be doing wrt the EU is sharing authority, rather than giving it to someone else.
Even in a perfectly democratic system, it just doesn't work like that. Every time the UK has a Conservative government Scotland starts complaining about being ruled by a party virtually nobody in the country voted for (with some justification, IMO), and that's only on the comparatively small scale of the UK! At the scale of the whole of Europe it would be perfectly possible for the continent to be ruled by a party that virtually nobody in the UK wanted to have in charge. Our votes would be considerable more meaningless than they already are, which is not an appealing thought.
quote:
For sure, the democratic institutions of the EU need reform, and subsidiarity needs to be rolled out across the union, so that neglected regions can at least attempt to order their affairs in a way that suits them vis strong central government.
If we want strong local government, then why bother with a continent-wide government at all? Why not just have local government and leave it at that?
quote:
To answer Marvin - pretty much the same raft of policies that the UK government won't devolve to the regions. Economic policy, defence, trade, human rights.
Why are those areas too big to be dealt with at the level of the UK (or smaller)? We seem to have done OK so far...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
At the scale of the whole of Europe it would be perfectly possible for the continent to be ruled by a party that virtually nobody in the UK wanted to have in charge.
Which is why strong central government deciding every last bit of policy is stupid, bad and wrong. You're right, in that no one in say, Cornwall, should have to have local planning decisions dictated to them by someone in Warsaw, and vice versa. The authority of central government should only extend to those policy areas where a continent-wide strategy is necessary.
And in exactly the same way, ditto the UK government.
quote:
If we want strong local government, then why bother with a continent-wide government at all? Why not just have local government and leave it at that?
Because there are some decisions that cross borders and need to cross borders.
quote:
Why are those areas too big to be dealt with at the level of the UK (or smaller)? We seem to have done OK so far...
Free trade areas are necessarily cross-border. Free movement of people is necessarily cross-border. Defence is necessarily cross-border. Human rights is necessarily cross-border. Yes, we can have 28 treaties with 28 other countries all saying the same thing, with those 28 other countries all having treaties with the other 28, etc, etc.
Or we can have one treaty, which we all sign, and have one body overseeing it, to which we all elect representatives.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Perhaps it is inconsistent to in favour of the UK but against European integration in principle.
However, that is all rather moot - one can only be pro or anti whatever model is on offer. And for all Cameron's bluster and talk of negotiating a new deal, there is only one kind of EU on offer: one which is has been running into an ever-deepening crisis of democratic legitimacy for some years now.
For all its drawbacks, the UK does not have an unelected body with the power to make laws that override Parliament. In any event, it is perfectly proper to point out that the UK is sufficiently integrated to say that it is more than just the result of a treaty. The same cannot yet be said of the EU.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why strong central government deciding every last bit of policy is stupid, bad and wrong. You're right, in that no one in say, Cornwall, should have to have local planning decisions dictated to them by someone in Warsaw, and vice versa.
I heartily agree
quote:
The authority of central government should only extend to those policy areas where a continent-wide strategy is necessary.
I heartily disagree that any policy areas need to be dealt with by a continent-wide government.
quote:
Free trade areas are necessarily cross-border. Free movement of people is necessarily cross-border. Defence is necessarily cross-border. Human rights is necessarily cross-border. Yes, we can have 28 treaties with 28 other countries all saying the same thing, with those 28 other countries all having treaties with the other 28, etc, etc.
Or we can have one treaty, which we all sign, and have one body overseeing it, to which we all elect representatives.
I prefer the "28 treaties" approach. Because the "one central government" approach means we also have to have that one central government deciding (among other things) how much tax we will pay, what it will be spent on and where it will be spent, passing laws about what we can and can't legally do, and deciding which stupid fucking wars we should join in with.
Because if you're going to have 28 different "state legislatures" passing different laws about all those things then you may as well call them national governments and go back to the "28 treaties" idea!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
In a genuine federal system (and, I don't think anyone has managed to organise a proper federal government) then things like taxation are decided at the level of local legislatures. The federal government will need some revenue to fund the roles it has, and will probably therefore need tax income - though whether through a central administered tax or a mechanism whereby each regional government pays their fair share into the central pot (and raises that by whatever means they deem most appropriate) is debatable; I'd opt for the local region deciding how to raise those funds and then the central government has no direct tax raising powers at all (which has an added potential bonus of curbing central power by having their purse strings held by the regional governments). That argument is valid for a central government in Westminster with regional governments in Scotland, Wales, N Ireland, Northern England, Central England, SW England and SE England (or wherever). It is equally valid for a central government in Strasbourg (Brussels, or wherever) with the same regions plus similar regions in France, Germany, Scandanavia, Italy, Spain, Greece etc.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
I never understand the argument that Scots did not vote for Tory governments since the 1950s and are ruled by them. A democracy cannot function if regions feel they can defect because they voted differently from the majority last time round.
On that basis Bavaria (vote conservative since 1949) and North-Rhine Westphalia (red for all but one election since 1949) would long have left Germany. At other times other states would have left with the same argument. And why stop at regions? Why not let cities do the same? There are a few city states in Europe - why not some more?
Since devolution Scotland has more powers than the 16 "Länder" that make up Germany - and more powers than any other region in the UK. No bad deal. And would Scotland let Orkney and Shetland opt out of their independence? Taking a lot of the oil with them.
Mind, I'll still vote for independence next year, but that particular argument is nonsense and betrays a misconception of what democracy is.
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The federal government will need some revenue to fund the roles it has
First, you need to demonstrate the necessity for those roles to be performed at the federal level in the first place. What would the UK gain by handing those roles over to a theoretical United States of Europe rather than retaining them for itself?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
A democracy cannot function if regions feel they can defect because they voted differently from the majority last time round.
But if that voting difference is leading to a region being disadvantaged without having the ability to do anything about it, then democracy isn't functioning for the region anyway.
quote:
On that basis Bavaria (vote conservative since 1949) and North-Rhine Westphalia (red for all but one election since 1949) would long have left Germany. At other times other states would have left with the same argument.
The problem being...?
quote:
And why stop at regions? Why not let cities do the same? There are a few city states in Europe - why not some more?
Why not indeed?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The federal government will need some revenue to fund the roles it has
First, you need to demonstrate the necessity for those roles to be performed at the federal level in the first place. What would the UK gain by handing those roles over to a theoretical United States of Europe rather than retaining them for itself?
If the UK retains some roles, rather than those roles all being devolved down to smaller regions within the UK then you are accepting the argument that there are roles that require government at a level above the local scale. The question then is, what makes government covering that bit of Europe known as the UK acceptable but putting that government at a level covering more of Europe not? What is the fundamental difference?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the UK retains some roles, rather than those roles all being devolved down to smaller regions within the UK then you are accepting the argument that there are roles that require government at a level above the local scale.
Don't get me wrong - I'd happily settle for all powers being held at the local level.
quote:
The question then is, what makes government covering that bit of Europe known as the UK acceptable but putting that government at a level covering more of Europe not? What is the fundamental difference?
Size, and the corresponding reduction in how much of a say any given voter has in how their government does its business. The bigger the country, the less important any individual voter is.
So what do you think makes the difference the other way? Why would a USE be so much better than what we have now?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think energy policy is probably something that would benefit from a continent wide approach. Ultimately the only way renewable energy is going to be viable is if Spanish and Italian solar power can be balanced with Scottish and Danish wind, backed up by Swedish pumped hydro storage. That means a continent spanning high voltage DC network, and a sophisticated control system to manage the different sources. That means either an intergovernmental wrangle over every detail, or a supranational organisation to make and implement plans, with input from all the regions involved.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I prefer the "28 treaties" approach. Because the "one central government" approach means we also have to have that one central government deciding (among other things) how much tax we will pay, what it will be spent on and where it will be spent, passing laws about what we can and can't legally do, and deciding which stupid fucking wars we should join in with.
But, as Alan points out, that's exactly what the UK has now. You're arguing for the UK to have those powers while simultaneously arguing against any larger body having them. You're also picking on taxes, laws and wars as if national governments alone are the only bodies which can ever decide such things. That not only doesn't have to be the case, it's not the case now.
Seen from Edinburgh, Cardiff, Exeter, Newcastle or Manchester your argument makes no sense whatsoever. The lines on the map are both transitory and illusory. Where they are currently are not where they were, or where they will be in the future.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But, as Alan points out, that's exactly what the UK has now. You're arguing for the UK to have those powers while simultaneously arguing against any larger body having them.
Yes, because the UK is smaller than the EU. But you'll note that, as a supporter of Scottish independence, I'm also arguing for the UK to become smaller.
It's all about size.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think energy policy is probably something that would benefit from a continent wide approach. Ultimately the only way renewable energy is going to be viable is if Spanish and Italian solar power can be balanced with Scottish and Danish wind, backed up by Swedish pumped hydro storage. That means a continent spanning high voltage DC network, and a sophisticated control system to manage the different sources.
If the renewable energy sources of each country you just mentioned are insufficient to meet that country's power needs, then how are they going to be sufficient to meet an entire continent's needs when added together? You wouldn't create any extra energy by doing so, you'd just be spreading the same amount more thinly.
Which makes it a good allegory for the EU, actually...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
That is at least consistent ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
However, it would still be in the best interests of EU nationals to have common policies regarding defence, human rights, food tracing, movement of goods and people, consumer standards - stuff like that which the EU actually already does pretty well - and rather than having a bajillion bilateral agreements, having just one is more sensible. I rather thought you'd be against giving more jobs to bureaucrats...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
(Also, I'm absolutely certain you know what Arethosemyfeet meant... the big problem with renewables are that they're atomised, so that when the sun goes in, you need back up, or the wind dies, you need back up. Across a whole continent, and solar farms in North Africa, that back up is also renewable).
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I honestly don't know what I think about EU or British devolution.
But it is quite possible to be pro-UK but anti-EU if your primary objection to the EU is the way that organisation works at the moment. One could be pan-European in principle, but against it in this manifestation of its practice.
Alternatively, you could be pro-UK but anti-EU if you believe that changes in government are more likely to be negative than positive, and you believe the pre-Maastrict system worked well. Other systems in any direction may work better, but they are more likely not to, so it's better to stay where we were.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
However, it would still be in the best interests of EU nationals to have common policies regarding defence, human rights, food tracing, movement of goods and people, consumer standards - stuff like that which the EU actually already does pretty well - and rather than having a bajillion bilateral agreements, having just one is more sensible. I rather thought you'd be against giving more jobs to bureaucrats...
A Free Trade Area does not require any loss of sovereignty, so long as each country (or region) is free to enter or leave the agreement as it wishes. All the rest should be for the people of each country (or region) to decide for themselves. Isn't that what democracy means - that the people should decide for themselves rather than being told what they want (or what is in their best interest) by some distant politician who doesn't give a single fuck about any of them?
[ 09. July 2013, 15:45: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(Also, I'm absolutely certain you know what Arethosemyfeet meant... the big problem with renewables are that they're atomised, so that when the sun goes in, you need back up, or the wind dies, you need back up. Across a whole continent, and solar farms in North Africa, that back up is also renewable).
Even if you only look at times when it's blowing, there's still not enough wind in Scotland to provide for the power needs of Scotland, let alone to provide backup for the rest of the continent. Even if you could somehow plug all the renewable energy sources in Europe together, I seriously doubt you'd have enough power to run Belgium, let alone the whole continent.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
But it is quite possible to be pro-UK but anti-EU if your primary objection to the EU is the way that organisation works at the moment. One could be pan-European in principle, but against it in this manifestation of its practice.
Alternatively, you could be pro-UK but anti-EU if you believe that changes in government are more likely to be negative than positive, and you believe the pre-Maastrict system worked well.
The pedant in me claims that both of your alternatives are the same; both are about how the EU currently works (the second just compares it to pre-Maastrict as a better system).
But, I agree with you. Of course, you can object to the current EU system. Personally, I would describe the current EU set up as a right balls up, which is largely the result of trying to change the system from a simple free-trade area to something more like a government, without changing the structures too much (and hence, having structures that don't work), piecemeal additions to the European programme (adding in various very good laws relating to human rights, food labelling etc that the EU does well at), retention of outdated measures beyond their usefulness (eg: agricultural and fisheries policies initially designed to boost European food production and support European farmers/fishermen at times of relative food scarcity in Europe, with an attempt to shoehorn environmental sustainability aims into the same structures ... which is pretty much what I said about other European structures), trying to please everyone (and, hence, succeeding in pleasing no-one) and a general lack of vision as to where exactly Europe should be going in terms of centralised government.
My original point was actually the inconsistency behind calls to maintain strong centralised government in the UK (the "Unionist position") and opposition to any form of centralised government in Europe (which is also a unionist position, just with a larger union).
I would put myself in a position which is fairly strongly pro European Union, but very strongly anti- the current balls up of a system. I would want a European Union that has strong regional governments and a centralised elected government with authority over matters of trans-region importance (defence, maintanance of free trade including movement of labour, arbitration in differences of opinion between regions within Europe, some policing issues, immigration into Europe, scientific R&D especially for larger infrastructure projects, some power to influence regional economies to maintain currency stability that may include some central reserve bank etc). Until we get political parties that genuinely span nations and get signficant proportions of the vote then that government would have a chamber of elected members where any majority would have to be formed by coalition, which is what I'd like because then the smaller voices (ie: individual voters) get a stronger voice. In theory the UK should have a strong democratic government now, except Clegg is a wimp and didn't use the influence he should have had to push for the policies LibDem voters wanted. Yes, I do believe that a coalition of strong partners seeking to best work for all those who voted for them is stronger than a single party in control working only for that part of the electorate that comprise their membership.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think energy policy is probably something that would benefit from a continent wide approach. Ultimately the only way renewable energy is going to be viable is if Spanish and Italian solar power can be balanced with Scottish and Danish wind, backed up by Swedish pumped hydro storage. That means a continent spanning high voltage DC network, and a sophisticated control system to manage the different sources.
If the renewable energy sources of each country you just mentioned are insufficient to meet that country's power needs, then how are they going to be sufficient to meet an entire continent's needs when added together? You wouldn't create any extra energy by doing so, you'd just be spreading the same amount more thinly.
Which makes it a good allegory for the EU, actually...
But that's what currently happens between Scotland and England. England's power stations generate a steady amount 24/7; they can't just be switched off and on. Scotland imports electricity at night, when England produces more than is needed, and uses some of it to pump water uphill in hydro-electric pump-storage schemes. Then, during the day, when England can't supply it's own needs, Scotland generates power by releasing the water to generate hydro-electricity and exports it to England. It's called "top-slicing." Hydro electricity slices the top off the peaks of demand. But it's economically viable because of the surplus electricity generated at night.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
AC,
ISTM the US has the tax system you described a few posts up. And, of course, all are happy how it works.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Even if you could somehow plug all the renewable energy sources in Europe together, I seriously doubt you'd have enough power to run Belgium, let alone the whole continent.
I just checked the figures, and I'm reasonably confident you're wrong. The EU currently produces 20% of its energy via renewables - more than enough for Belgium.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If the renewable energy sources of each country you just mentioned are insufficient to meet that country's power needs, then how are they going to be sufficient to meet an entire continent's needs when added together? You wouldn't create any extra energy by doing so, you'd just be spreading the same amount more thinly.
Which makes it a good allegory for the EU, actually...
It doesn't work that way neccessarilly.
Energy use in the UK varies between 40GW and 60GW (partly at random-including how Murray does, partly seasonal). Each production method also has some variation (nuclear almost constant, coal controllable, wind at random, wave at known times).
No doubt France, Germany is similar. So they all need to be able to (say 99%) reliably provide 60GW each, which probably means having the equipment for more, say 70GW (although you can of course have the coal stations idling if it is a windy day you still need them).
It's a bit of a stretch to assume peaks aren't related-Europe's not that big. But I'm sure the actual corrections can be supplied. We'll keep the spherical cow to explain the principle.
Now first of all you only have to reliably provide (something like) 150GW rather than 180GW. But further the odds of it being calm in scotland and cloudy in spain are lower than the odds of either so you need even less surpluss (but we'll stick with 10GW) giving the same (confidence of) supply for almost 2/3 of the cost.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(Also, I'm absolutely certain you know what Arethosemyfeet meant... the big problem with renewables are that they're atomised, so that when the sun goes in, you need back up, or the wind dies, you need back up. Across a whole continent, and solar farms in North Africa, that back up is also renewable).
Even if you only look at times when it's blowing, there's still not enough wind in Scotland to provide for the power needs of Scotland, let alone to provide backup for the rest of the continent. Even if you could somehow plug all the renewable energy sources in Europe together, I seriously doubt you'd have enough power to run Belgium, let alone the whole continent.
I would have thought it was fairly clear that I wasn't talking about current capacity. Scotland has the potential from wind (and wave and tidal when they come on stream) to power it self many times over. The problem is that getting enough installed capacity to power the country when wind levels are low and seas are relatively calm means having 10 or 20 times more power than is needed at other times. The lack of interconnectivity and the losses associated with long distance AC transmission means that there will be a limit to the proportion of power any small geographic area can generate from a single or related set of renewables. The chances of the wind not blowing anywhere in northern Europe and it being dark across the whole of southern Europe and North Africa AND all the pumped storage being used up is much much lower. By spreading the variability across technologies and across countries you can maximise the proportion of power produced from renewable sources, reducing the need for conventional backup, and reduce the need for overcapacity.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A Free Trade Area does not require any loss of sovereignty, so long as each country (or region) is free to enter or leave the agreement as it wishes. All the rest should be for the people of each country (or region) to decide for themselves. Isn't that what democracy means - that the people should decide for themselves rather than being told what they want (or what is in their best interest) by some distant politician who doesn't give a single fuck about any of them?
I would like to latch on to your use of the word "sovereignty". In practice, sovereignty is quite a slippery term and cannot be simply legislated by constitutionally declaring "the people are sovereign" or "parliament is sovereign". Countries are known to cajole one another into doing or not doing certain things. Germany has dictated economic modalities in Greece, the United States has dissuaded a number of countries from hosting Mr Snowden, Switzerland, although not part of the EU, finds herself accepting all sorts of EU standards and laws nevertheless. What we call sovereignty is in fact something which is situationally weighed up and negotiated in terms of prevailing power relationships and economic opportunities. We can either do this on an ad hoc 27-treaty basis, or we can do it within the confines of a systemic framework (yes, I mean the EU), which greatly simplifies many processes and makes the outcomes more straightforward for most participants. It opens the way to pursuing common interests towards the outside, in Europe's case, establishing a common voice in the world, thereby regaining some of the sovereignty at a collective level which was lost within the community of countries.
This leads me to be "pro-Europe" and "pro-Indy" in the case of Scotland. The geopolitical logic of ever larger power blocks will sustain the European Project, as the individual states are too small to make any real global impact. Yet remaining within the Union of the UK, Scotland, distinct as it is, is doomed to become a region of a region, and thus remain irrelevant as a political entity at the European level.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Countries are known to cajole one another into doing or not doing certain things.
So are people, but that doesn't mean they may as well surrender their individuality and independence.
quote:
The geopolitical logic of ever larger power blocks will sustain the European Project, as the individual states are too small to make any real global impact. Yet remaining within the Union of the UK, Scotland, distinct as it is, is doomed to become a region of a region, and thus remain irrelevant as a political entity at the European level.
Who gives a shit about global impact or political relevance? If its a choice between self-determination and those two concepts I'll take self-determination, thanks.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
AC,
ISTM the US has the tax system you described a few posts up. And, of course, all are happy how it works.
No, that's not how the US tax system works. The federal government taxes individuals and corporations directly, it does not raise levies from the states.
Looking at it from the outside, ISTM that the core problem with the EU is that if it were to become a truly democratic federal system, the national elites in the member states would lose power (i.e., Cameron would be demoted to the equivalent of a US state governor), so they prefer an undemocratic and unpopular bureaucracy in Brussels that can do some of the dirty work without reducing their power in their own country.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Fairly certain that taxes paid to the state of residence are sent up to the federal level and then redistributed back to the states. Some states receive more than they send in and some less. Sort of a welfare for the state governments.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
I would like to latch on to your use of the word "sovereignty". In practice, sovereignty is quite a slippery term and cannot be simply legislated by constitutionally declaring "the people are sovereign" or "parliament is sovereign". Countries are known to cajole one another into doing or not doing certain things...
I think it means having the freedom to choose what you want to do.
If it means freedom from consequences, as you appear to suggest, even the United States is not sovereign.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
Indeed. This is what I mean. In statecraft, the two are pretty much the same in practice. The consequences of an action will restrict a state's freedom to do what it pleases. Even the United States has come to learn that foreign events and forces influence the way it regulates at least some of its internal affairs.
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Scotland has the potential from wind (and wave and tidal when they come on stream) to power it self many times over.
Just to add to the probable tangent. But, it's interesting anyway. The Scottish Government has a target of enough installed capacity from renewables to provide the current electricity demand in Scotland by 2020. That is an extremely ambitious target; currently installed capacity accounts for about 25% of our electricity use; with the phased closure of coal stations already underway nuclear is now the largest contributor to Scottish electricity production.
There are a couple of very important things to note about the Scottish Government target. First, it's installed capacity. That is the theoretical power output from the various sources. The actual capacity will be less than that: for wind it's about 30% (ie: an installed capacity of 3GW will on average generate 1GW), and slightly higher off-shore; solar (in Scotland) is much lower; hydro is above 90% (when was the last time you saw a Scottish river dry up!); wave and tidal are untested technologies but also unlikely to be above 50%. So, even if we meet the target, we'll still need to generate about 60% of our electricity by other means (and, if the Scottish Government follow-up on their plans to close down all coal and nuclear that means another dash for gas). In addition, that is only for electricity generation, which accounts for about 20% of the UK energy use. The other 80% is split fairly evenly about 40% for transport and 40% for space heating. Plans to reduce fossil fuel use in both these sectors involve electrification of trains, trams, electric cars, heat pumps for space heating etc ... all resulting in an increase in electricity demand at a time when non-renewable electricity generation is being phased out. I suspect that deep within the bowels of Holyrood there are people praying that Hunterston and Torness get license extensions to keep generating for a few more years to give some breathing space for the development of untested renewable generation, though that would only be a sticking plaster without some significant baseload capacity being built (and, that means nuclear IMO, or at the very least cleaner coal with CCS).
Though the plans of the Scottish Government for a green power supply are very laudable, they are so ambitious as to be approaching the status of fantasy. And, our government has set out targets far more ambitious than anyone else. Even with a high efficiency Europe wide power transmission network (which is another of those untested technologies, as current AC power systems will result in too many losses) we'd need a vastly more ambitious European project to see Europe go significantly renewable. In practice we'll come to rely on French nuclear and Russian gas. Not that there is anything wrong in principal with people relying on each other and sharing the resources they have with others.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fairly certain that taxes paid to the state of residence are sent up to the federal level and then redistributed back to the states. Some states receive more than they send in and some less. Sort of a welfare for the state governments.
In the US? No, this is not correct. There are some state-administered activities that are partially funded by the federal government (like Medicaid), but the fed collects this money from individual taxes, not from the states.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
In statecraft, the two are pretty much the same in practice. The consequences of an action will restrict a state's freedom to do what it pleases. Even the United States has come to learn that foreign events and forces influence the way it regulates at least some of its internal affairs.
This is true. However, it's a bloody big leap from that to saying that all the various countries may as well become one big country.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In practice we'll come to rely on French nuclear and Russian gas. Not that there is anything wrong in principal with people relying on each other and sharing the resources they have with others.
There's nothing wrong in principle with giving France and Russia all the power (literally)? There's nothing wrong in principle with giving those places the ability to say "you're free to do what you want of course, but if we don't like it we'll just turn off the power supply to your homes"? Or do you envisage us having something they will need that we can threaten to stop providing should they turn off our energy?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In practice we'll come to rely on French nuclear and Russian gas. Not that there is anything wrong in principal with people relying on each other and sharing the resources they have with others.
There's nothing wrong in principle with giving France and Russia all the power (literally)? There's nothing wrong in principle with giving those places the ability to say "you're free to do what you want of course, but if we don't like it we'll just turn off the power supply to your homes"? Or do you envisage us having something they will need that we can threaten to stop providing should they turn off our energy?
I think the key word here is 'share' and not 'threaten'.
No man, no region, no country, is an island. In practice, people rely on their neighbours. England is not immune.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think the key word here is 'share' and not 'threaten'.
Well if we were all going to share nicely we wouldn't need governments at all, would we?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think the key word here is 'share' and not 'threaten'.
Well if we were all going to share nicely we wouldn't need governments at all, would we?
That would be nice.
But, in the real world we need government to help the sharing. The Westminster government ensured that the proceeds from North Sea oil were shared by the UK and not just retained in Scotland. A stronger devolved/independent Holyrood would need to ensure that proceeds from North Sea oil are shared by the whole of Scotland with some benefit passed on south of the border, rather than just being retained in Aberdeen and Shetland. An EU government would have to do the same job ensuring resources are shared. Just like the UK government does ... back to my original point that there would be considerable similarities between the two Unions.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think the key word here is 'share' and not 'threaten'.
Well if we were all going to share nicely we wouldn't need governments at all, would we?
Yeah, 'nicely' is an adverb you've just added. There is considerable middle ground between the thing that you hate (arse-clenchingly liberal tofu-knitting hippy commune) and the thing I hate (hyper-capitalist antagonistic market-forces balkanisation).
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fairly certain that taxes paid to the state of residence are sent up to the federal level and then redistributed back to the states. Some states receive more than they send in and some less. Sort of a welfare for the state governments.
In the US? No, this is not correct. There are some state-administered activities that are partially funded by the federal government (like Medicaid), but the fed collects this money from individual taxes, not from the states.
My bad, this is what I was referring to. So not exactly, but contains elements of.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An EU government would have to do the same job ensuring resources are shared. Just like the UK government does ... back to my original point that there would be considerable similarities between the two Unions.
This is starting to sound like some kind of socialist "share everything equally between everyone" crap.
But hey, if that's the real point of the EU then why not go the whole hog, get rid of nations, and have one government for the entire world?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Why not?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There is considerable middle ground between the thing that you hate (arse-clenchingly liberal tofu-knitting hippy commune) and the thing I hate (hyper-capitalist antagonistic market-forces balkanisation).
True that. The particular middle ground I happen to prefer is the one that lets each region decide for itself whether it wants to be a hippy commune or a capitalist bear-pit. It just seems so much more democratic to let people decide for themselves rather than imposing one philosophy on an entire continent.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why not?
Because we're not all the same. And because it would mean pretty much everyone in the part of the world where I live becoming considerably poorer, myself included.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why not?
Because we're not all the same.
Yes. So what? We currently live in a United Kingdom which manages to accomodate lots of different people fairly amicably. Why shouldn't such accomodation of differences work as well in a larger Union - whether that be continental or global in scale?
quote:
And because it would mean pretty much everyone in the part of the world where I live becoming considerably poorer, myself included.
And, a lot of people in the world currently in abject poverty a little bit richer. I see no problem there.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why not?
Because we're not all the same.
Yes. So what? We currently live in a United Kingdom which manages to accomodate lots of different people fairly amicably. Why shouldn't such accomodation of differences work as well in a larger Union - whether that be continental or global in scale?
We have differences, yes - but at the local scale we also have a lot of similarities that hold us together. Language, culture, and so on. As the scale grows bigger the similarities vanish while the differences grow - hell, even at the level of the UK there are some major fractures such as the push for Scottish independence and the whole north/south divide.
quote:
quote:
And because it would mean pretty much everyone in the part of the world where I live becoming considerably poorer, myself included.
And, a lot of people in the world currently in abject poverty a little bit richer. I see no problem there.
The problem is whether you think self-determination is important.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If we want strong local government, then why bother with a continent-wide government at all? Why not just have local government and leave it at that?
Because the seven worst enemies of local government in the UK, are, in approximate order of worstness, the British Government, the House of Commons, the Conservative Party, the Treasury, the House of Lords, the Liberal-don't-know-crap Party, and the Labour Party. (The Liberals used to be better and Labour worse, but Labour did actually push through some genuine decentralisation between 1st May 1997 and 11th Septenber 2001 - the only four years in British history that have seen any serious decentralisation from Westminster since at least the early 1920s and possibly the 1840s). So if you want more local autonomy and suibsidiarity, the only way you are going to get them short of a revolution and the overthrow of the entire British Establishement, is to find a way to do a run round it.
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
I never understand the argument that Scots did not vote for Tory governments since the 1950s and are ruled by them. A democracy cannot function if regions feel they can defect because they voted differently from the majority last time round.
On that basis Bavaria (vote conservative since 1949) and North-Rhine Westphalia (red for all but one election since 1949) would long have left Germany.
Why shouldn't they if they want to? Who would it inconvenience?
I'm not saying that they do want to leave, or that should want to leave. But iof they did want to leave, would it be worth a war to stop them? No, of course not. And if not, then somewhere there is room for negotiation.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why not?
Because public administration is a hard problem that doesn't scale well. Civil services are better at it than business (more large business projects fail than succeed) but no-one is very good at it. Much better to let people get on with things on their own rather than telling them what to do.
And because people who are trying their best to do it well and get it wrong have a regretable tendencey to try shortcuts like autocracy, espionage, censorship, torture, bloodshed, rape, pillage, and massacre and so on to fix over their mistakes. All with the best possible motives.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
