3 ms·
In the past when it was smaller, yes. Nowadays, not so much. Perhaps that's Juncker, or perhaps it's the fact that it's now so large. See how Cameron's negotia
by sievebrain 10y ago
In the past when it was smaller, yes.
Nowadays, not so much. Perhaps that's Juncker, or perhaps it's the fact that it's now so large. See how Cameron's negotiation went (or rather, didn't).
Besides, most of the compromises were simply not forcing the UK to do new things. That's only seen as a compromise because the EU is run by people who believe every member should be forcibly 'harmonised' through automatic implementation of new EU laws. If the EU was more like a standards body that simply recommended laws instead of mandating their implementation, there would be no need for allowing alternatives to be seen as "compromise"
- barrkel 10y agoIf you don't mandate implementation, you don't have a level playing field; you have a race to the bottom on everything from tax levels to working laws to product standards. Game theoretically, everybody loses in a race to the bottom. There would be no point in an EU that couldn't mandate laws.
- sievebrain 10y agoThe EU does not control tax law, yet apparently lots of people believe it still has a point. The EU cannot mandate tax or worker rights outside of the EU either. So the only way to stop a "race to the bottom" is to become entirely protectionist and go full North Korea. Suffice it to say, the EU could have taken many structures that are not the one it has now.
- Oletros 10y ago> If the EU was more like a standards body that simply recommended laws instead of mandating their implementation, there would be no need for allowing alternatives to be seen as "compromise" \ Then why have an EU? The problem for the UK is that they always want have all the benefits but they don't want all the duties.