EU can be credited with the extension of civil rights to minorities (e.g. gays or women) in backward Eastern European states. It is also a mechanism of redistribution of wealth among more and less developed countries. I do not understand why anyone on the left should object to that.
The argument that EU was a mechanism of introducing neoliberalism to Europe is not worth the paper on which it is written. That honor goes mainly to two nation-states: the United Kingdom and the United States and their august leader at the time, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
Ant those who object to "unelected bureaucrats" "assaulting" the welfare state should be reminded that if it were not for these "unelected bureaucrats" there would be no European welfare state as we know it. Populist sentiments can be credited with the rise of fascism, but not welfare state.
If I were to chose between a populist democracy the US style and Eurobureaucracy - I would go for the latter without thinking twice.
Wojtek
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> DRR writes
>
> "For all the problems of the EU, it's pretty harmless compared to the
> predatory monster otherwise known as the US superstate, which spends half
> its funds on permanent war, and has been captured by $3 billion in annual
> campaign donations."
>
> The problems of the EU -- complete elimination of the democratic process &
> an attack on west european worker living standards through the virtual
> outsourcing built into the system (w eastern Europe) is not harmless at all.
>
> Moreover the U.S. is not separate from all this: its permanent war strategy
> is useful to the EU in all kinds of ways: it's money it doesn't have to
> spend and an invidious comparison (we're harmless, they're not).
>
> Joanna
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>