How much power does the EU actually have on the countries that are members? Are you happy to be a member?

You can not say that easily, but with some regularity you hear a minister saying that he cannot do anything: ‘ It is EU policy ‘.

For example, corporations were allowed to decide for themselves who they wanted to accommodate.Investors did not find that okay, who wanted to have a maximum income for access to a social home. In the end, they have deposited and won the EU Institutional Investor problem. The European Commission has ordained that there should be an income limit.

This gave rise to major problems, because there are no affordable rental houses in the Netherlands for people who just don’t have access to the social sector.That segment was always the domain of the social sector. The investors found the returns on such rental properties too low. It has been a major disaster, which we still suffer. But the government says, ‘ Sorry, must of Brussels. ‘

Another point is that within an economic zone, such as the Schengen zone, the external borders must be monitored very well.You must be able to keep unwanted migrants out. The EU has been very weak in this, with the result that large groups have invaded the country through the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe. The responsibility to avoid this lies with the EU, but they have never made any work of creating reliable external borders. The resignation of the British has a lot to do with the refugee problem. The British say they want to decide who to let them in and who not.

What also annoys many people is the megalomaniac striving to bring every crooks state to the Union.Most Western Europeans would much prefer a small union of wealthy countries. The rest can associate themselves. The EU continues to work on that bizarre idea of a European superstate, love a federation. The result is that more and more countries are coming into the EU, with leaders who are particularly interested in making EU subsidies in their own pocket and those of the Friends cabal.

That which annoys the EU is a mix of too great power and too great impotence and too low a democratic content.

Both much and little power.Both happy and not happy.

At European level, there is actually no real executive body.The European Parliament has, in fact, seen little power, and ultimately all the proposals must be approved by the Council of the European Union in terms of their policy area. Even the European Council has no legislative function. The only one of the three powers that you can really find at European level is the case law. On the other hand, you see that an estimated 80% of the new legislation is now coming from the European level.

The European Union has been favourable to the Netherlands in many respects.The disappearance of frontiers, unambiguous economic policy in terms of coal and steel, a single currency, despite some of the drawbacks that have been in general economically favourable to the Netherlands.

Unfortunately, however, it is also true that there are many laws at European level which find a majority at national level, which I believe to be bad and harmful.I am evidently more progressive than many national and European politicians.

I would mention an example with the Cookiewet.I am one of the few people I know of in the ICT that this is a very bad law, which should never have seen the daylight and even no legislative proposal. Cookies are if we are not talking about, for example, session cookies, small text files that can simply be deleted on the user’s own computer. Tracking information that is much more sensitive to privacy is the retrieval and retention of the IP address and individual statistics (do not read aggregated statistics), so a cookie is not even needed. So the so-called fact that a cookie would be dangerous for privacy is, in my opinion, largely kolder. Why is that law then introduced?

I believe there are two reasons for this.The first reason is that it is in fact a kind of RAF law. RAF refers to Rote Armee Fraktion, a terrorist group from the 1970s in West Germany with communist signature. In the 1970s, West Germany introduced a number of laws that were supposedly intended to protect citizens ‘ privacy while the real goal was to combat this grouping. It is dangerous, however, that such laws may also be potentially used to suppress people and opinions. It can be detrimental to freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The Cookiewet is still a fraction worse than that, it is also detrimental to free entrepreneurship.

An important principle in law is reasonableness and fairness.Well, a small entrepreneur with a webshop give the risk of a fine of 300,000 euros because he or she does not comply with a law that is not relevant or irrelevant in terms of privacy, is certainly not reasonable and not fair.

I am therefore quite sure that authorities in the Netherlands have said, “We do not enforce this law”.Probably it’s only going to be used when fighting IS-like groups on the Internet. However, this does not mean that the law still remains a very bad law in principle.

And then I come to the second reason that I think that law has found a majority.Although it is now slightly better with the economy since the crisis of 2008, there is still a lot of vacancy of retail properties. This has not only come from the crisis, in my opinion the Internet and the emergence of webshops certainly play a role in this. But fighting this process with these kinds of laws is a conservative and draconian measure and it really does not protect the old ‘ brick and mortar ‘ stores. This kind of law does not even fall abroad, but the internet is worldwide, but my suspicion is that rural politicians do not understand this, just as they understand what a cookie is at all. The problem you create in this way is improper competition from overseas.

Perhaps such conservative laws have found a majority, because at European level, the way the EU operates is rather conservative. One of the reasons for this is, in my view, the lack of a genuine executive and legislative power.The only one of the three democratic powers is the judiciary. I am exaggerating and charting here, but there is a name for that kind of systems, it is Kritarchisch (comes from the Bible). That essentially makes the European Union conservative and not so very democratic at supranational level. In my opinion, lack of democracy is a bad thing.

The problem, however, is that the solution to such a problem means giving more powers in terms of legislative and executive power at European level.The question is if you want to. There are major differences in culture within Europe and there is still a lot of corruption in the European parlament.

Europe has many advantages, but it also has many drawbacks.It’s not perfect for a long time. In my opinion, the European Union must change. The question is just how? There is no easy solution to this type of problem.

The EU has less power over the Member States than, for example, the United Kingdom on the countries belonging to it, such as Scotland, which would have preferred to remain in the EU.In fact, you could say that in the UK England the other countries such as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, by the numerical superiority, impose the will. There is no such situation in the EU at all. Germany is the largest country, but Spain and Italy alone are already bigger together. In addition, there are many facilities that are intended to mean that large countries do not have (much) more to say than small ones. And those countries have agreed with each other on what parts of policy the EU has a bit to say, and what is not.

The best you can compare the EU with an association, such as the ANWB.You don’t have to be a member of that, but if you are, you will have to abide by the rules of that club. And of course also the benefits. The signage in our country is arranged by the ANWB and ranks among the best in the world, especially if you also charge the system of mushrooms and other additional slow-traffic tools. Our road guard is also not for those in other countries, but only if you are a member of the ANWB you can use it and determine how far the service is provided. Ultimately, the members of the ANWB themselves, who kicked, through the members ‘ Council, determine how the ANWB’s policy looks and what is and is not covered.

Every comparison goes somewhere mank, but broadly it beats.

To sum up, the EU has as much or as little to tell as the Member States have defined and on the policy areas that the Member States have also determined.A country can terminate its membership, but of course someone has to cough up the associated costs. It makes sense that if you have rented a bus with five friends for the holiday and you decide at the last moment not to go along, you will take your responsibility for the costs you have caused.

Does that mean that I do not have an eye for the disadvantages that membership of such a state bond entails?Of course, though. There is much to improve. But as California does not (seriously) consider stepping out of the US, despite being stuck against their will with that Trump and despite the fact that those three million votes had less than the candidate of their preference, we would be crazy to want to step out of the EU. We are much better off within it than beyond.

The different countries together form the EU. The power is most part of the countries themselves.Of course, each country alone cannot enforce anything in another country. Together they can only enforce little, they can find something, but if a country does not do anything then they have few sanction possibilities. So each country can broadly go its own way. The greatest pressure is the social pressure to conform, as you see it in ordinary groups as well.

Around refugee policy, all countries would include a number of refugees, some countries refuse to do so.

Budgetary discipline can be enforced with sanctions, but one would rather try to solve politics, so with social pressure.

In Poland, it has recently been decided to appoint judges politically.There was a fuss about it and because of the social pressure ‘ but you can’t do that anyway ‘ a bit has been scratched. In Hungary, Orban is simply going, as he has learned from the Russians, and in Romania they are still as corrupt as ever. The Greek crises have also arisen because the elite put the money in their own pocket, but the subsequent remediation of the Greek economy fits nicely with our liberal ideals.

In Brussels, the business community has a lot of power.They just want to sell their own products with a lot of profit. With a convenient lobby you can reach a lot. For example, if you are a producer of related articles, you can allow someone else to lobby on safety, health and first aid in accidents to get the EU to the extent that every motorist is obliged to have a connection drum in the car.

The politicians themselves are talkative lazy without many principles.Sometimes they do have a star worldview, so they are convinced of the same of their party. I think they depict themselves that they still have the same ideals as they used to be, but their main concern is that their hair is good. A good politician can blow with all the winds, so he only has an opinion when he knows from which angle the wind blows. Rutte is a good example of such a turning butt, especially because it is not charged to him. In Brussels one works Anoniemer. One deserves good, although it is not as good as in the top of business, but many politicians would not bring it much further in business than dishwashers. In this way one is mainly busy with walks to the bank and dinners with lobby-ists. In short, the EU is a great success.

Every success also has its shadow side.Human rights are really an important point in the EU, but if the privacy protection does not go beyond a pop-up on your computer or you like cookies, it would seem that the legislation is not flexible enough.

In a more fragmented situation, each country has much more control and can react more quickly and better to its own situation.Because a lot is settled in Brussels, national politics has become a theatre for the chickens, which show very perky how important they are, but it really does not matter. Even in the city council one can catch this fly over take over. Then one is going to eloquent other municipal members, without having to mention the matter.

Populism on the right is also a result of the EU and we can see it as a success.This right-wing populism does not fall within the EU’s successful liberal agenda, but the lament left-wing parties, who hardly dare to talk about social justice.

We can also ask ourselves whether the euro is such a great success. With the euro only as a unit of calculation, where all countries still have their own currency, the Greek crises would not have been as unpacked as it is today. The southern countries always used devaluation to solve their problems, now they do not have that freedom.In devaluation the costs are also divided but otherwise. I think the biggest advantage of devaluation is that it leads to faster solutions. In addition, the Dutch pension funds are now mainly used to solve the financial crises in the South, so that the costs on the citizen are recovered. In national devaluations, the risks are more in the business world.

So at the time I was opposed to the introduction of the Euro as a currency, but that does not mean that you can now simply abolish the euro.Abolishment also gives all disadvantages again. In the same way I can see many disadvantages of the EU, but we are in it and it also gives great benefits, even though it is all much slower and not in the direction you want.

To begin with, I am a concept for the EU.

Nevertheless, the EU has too much power where it does not belong and too little where it should be.

The EU is formed from a cartel of steel and coal, which in itself is an error starting point.

The institutions within the EU

  • European Commission

These are not elected technocrats who implement political and economic policies.That is to say they are the point of contact for negotiations but have no power to accept changes which should also be so, this must lie with elected politicians. But this also has the consequence that it is a democracy free zone that decides on us.

  • Council of EU

Is The Council of Ministers, which shows that they have decision-making powers but are given the Commission’s policy to approve or reject without taking part in its formation.

  • EU Council

Heads of state of the countries without an EU state can only initiate policy direction.

  • EU Court of Justice

Is limited to 3 areas of activity

  • ECB (European Central Bank)

The ECB is an illusion that we have a central bank.A central bank without state and states without central banks. The function of a central bank is to maintain the banking system in time of crisis while the ECB illegally closed the liquidity of the Greek banks to exert political pressure.

We have a central bank that is not allowed to give bond guarantees to States which is actually the main task of a central bank such as the FED in the United States.

  • European Parliament

This is a Parliament without a European Constitution, which only has a protocol function in essence.

Without EU reform, it looks bleak and fragmentation forces are already in operation.

Those interested can see this clip and others that clarify the issue as opposed to the mainstream media.

Leave a Reply