12 ms·

Is Europe Disintegrating?

60 points by themgt 10y ago

Mikeb85 10y ago
Based on my recent experience of visiting Europe - yes, it is. I stayed mostly in France, was there during the Brexit vote, and everyone I spoke to was pretty keen on exiting the EU, voting right-wing, and seeing it all crumble. They also have several separatist movements, especially in Brittany, which seems to be more anti-EU than anti-French...
- akjainaj 10y ago
  Living in one of the PIGS, I can tell there's not much going on here about leaving the EU. Nobody has seriously brought it up. That said, I see important problems in the EU going on now that must be solved: 1. I know the EU is completely against the "two-speed Europe". But that MUST be put in place if the EU is to survive. There's a clear divide between regions in the EU. It is a cultural divide in the way work is seen, perceived, in the way money is handled, on how corruption is seen by citizens, etc. That's why after decades the economies of the PIGS have not adjusted to the rest of the EU, and they probably will never adjust. It's a cultural thing that won't change. Also, I suppose rich and poor countries don't equally agree with the amount socialism/interventionism the EU should be establishing. For example being from one of the PIGS I like interventionism from the EU because I see local politicians/courts/etc as useless. If you go to court and the verdict is stupid, you can go to a European court. But I suppose people from the north like their local politicians and courts and don't like it when the EU interferes. 2. Many people don't like immigrants. Whether that's racism or not, or whether those people can be educated or not... that's irrelevant. The EU is literally shoving immigrants down people's throats. Immigration from A8 countries MUST be regulated (end of Schengen) and also countries should be able to decide if they want Muslim refugees or not. Remember this is just my opinion and what I've seen around me as a citizen of one of the PIGS.
  - _delirium 10y ago
    I think #2 varies widely within the EU. Immigration from outside the EU (especially Muslim immigration) is a hot-button issue everywhere, but intra-EU immigration is a less contentious issue in many countries. In the UK there is a lot of opposition to immigration from eastern Europe in general (and the proverbial "Polish plumber" is a fixture of political debate), but that's not as big a worry in, say, Germany, where people are mostly worried about Syrians and not very concerned about Poles.
    - akjainaj 10y ago
      You are very correct, but it depends on what your country has received. My country for example received millions of Romanians/Bulgarians back in the day, so that's what people were against. There was a huge construction bubble, and they came en masse, leaving many locals without a job. As soon as the construction bubble popped, they left en masse. They also greatly increased the insecurity here, with really recurrent news about thefts committed by Romanians, pickpockets, etc. News were flooded with those events. So, you can imagine what the locals ended up thinking of them. Natives wouldn't say anything negative about rest of slavs, Poles, etc because they simply never met them.
  - pound 10y ago
    for those wondering: PIGS - Portugal, Italy, Greece & Spain (some people jump to comments)
    - tritosomal 10y ago
      Yeah, trying to google that acronym would have been utterly futile. Why do smart people assume that their own familiarity with a subject is a suitable guideline for tossing around opaque acronyms without prior definition? Why are people just supposed to know the acronym?
      - grzm 10y ago
        The article defines the acronym: He points to the acronym PIGS, coined for four crisis-torn, Southern European debtor countries of the eurozone: Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain.
      - akjainaj 10y ago
        If you google "pigs eu" you can find what you are looking for. In any case, the term is defined in the article.
    - 0xD3ADB33F 10y ago
      Talk about a loaded acronym.
  - gambiting 10y ago
    >>The EU is literally shoving immigrants down people's throats. Immigration from A8 countries MUST be regulated (end of Schengen) This attitude saddens me - regulation would most likely mean that I would need to get a visa to stay where I am, where I work and where I pay my taxes, which is not how I imagined EU. Just a few years ago, I felt "at home" wherever I went, who cared which nationality you were, you could walk into a government office in Germany, Spain, UK, France, and you would be treated the same as a local citizen. Now? It seems like we are becoming 2nd category citizens, despite the only difference between being a "foreigner" and "natural citizen" is the label on my passport.
  - walterstucco 10y ago
    Coming from Italy I don't feel like a pig. Maybe Spanish and Portuguese feel different about themselves...
  - rbanffy 10y ago
    > Many people don't like immigrants. Too bad they love buying and selling in the common market. Can't have the cake and eat it too. Edit: but they sure can downvote. Karma is an excellent fuel.
- bsaul 10y ago
  I suppose you didn't stay in France after the brexit. Seeing all the mess that it triggered, such as the fact that uk went behind france almost instantly in economic rankings, all this pretty much made everyone here realize those kind of votes do have consequences. Now what it triggered is also that every single politician talks about reforming europe ( borders mainly, but also politicaly). All in all, i'd say it pretty much tighten bounds across european countries than the opposite...until britain suddenly experience an extraordinary growth, that is.
- api 10y ago
  Question: what is the primary grievance against the EU?
  - artursapek 10y ago
    I don't know about primary, but I think a big one is the EU forcing countries to meet a quota of "refugee" immigration. Poland for example is refusing to accept these immigrants and paying a pretty big fine for each one they turn away [1]. Other countries like France and Germany are buckling to the pressure from the EU and accepting them, and we've all seen how well that has worked out for them. So I think not having to take this crap from the EU is one attractive reason to leave. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/poland-refuses-to-take-a-single-refugee-because-of-security-fears-a7020076.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/poland-refuse...
    - gambiting 10y ago
      The interesting thing here that it's not "EU vs EU member countries" - members do come up with, and vote on ideas. It's not like evil EU parliament said that everyone has to take immigrants, so everyone now has to and that's it. The move came about because of the flood of immigrants coming to Italy and Greece, mostly - and serious concern that neither one of those two countries can deal with the problem on their own. It has been decided(democratically, by representatives from each member country, not some evil court of villains!) that other member states will help lessen the burden, by taking a certain quota of immigrants, so that Italy and Greece don't collapse(even more). Yet in some media(particularly in the UK) it's portrayed as EU telling member countries what to do, without any notion that those countries also voted on this issue and agreed to it.
      - blibble 10y ago
        > Yet in some media(particularly in the UK) it's portrayed as EU telling member countries what to do, without any notion that those countries also voted on this issue and agreed to it. this is true, but the EU institution used its power to force through a proposal which several countries were extremely upset with. this was the first real example of Qualified Majority Voting being used in a controversial way, resulting in a lot of people becoming upset... suddenly the EU could no longer be seen as an institution that works almost entirely on consensus it certainly modified my views on whether or not I wanted the EU institutions gaining more power, or even retaining the ones they have at the moment
- bostand 10y ago
  > everyone I spoke to was pretty keen on exiting the EU Exactly what kind of people did you talk to? I visited Paris after Brexit and outside some groups on the far right everyone where laughing at the crazy brittons... Many in Germany and France consider UK hindering advancement in EU, and consider the Brexit a god send
- maxerickson 10y ago
  How many people did you speak to? Were many of them associated with each other for one reason or another?
- rbanffy 10y ago
  I'm sorry for your experiences. Here in Ireland people seem to be very favorable to the EU. At the office we tender to call Brexit by more descriptive names such as Bruckup or Brusterfuck.
mpweiher 10y ago
No. Pro EU sentiment increased markedly in pretty much all of Europe post-Brexit[1], and hopefully national politicians will stop playing the silly "do bad/unpopular things and then blame them on the EU"-game. This game was thought to be without cost, now it is clear that it is not, and the ones who played it most extensively are paying the biggest price. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/brexit-causes-resurgence-in-pro-eu-leanings-across-continent https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/brexit-causes-...
- yellow_viper 10y ago
  Yes anti-EU rhetoric went down post-Brexit. But it's still very high, and will likely continue to rise once Brexit is settled. It's clear >and hopefully national politicians will stop They won't.
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    > Yes anti-EU rhetoric went down post-Brexit. Nope, anti-EU rhetoric went up. It just wasn't effective as pro-EU sentiment in the population rose (from mostly already high baselines).
powertower 10y ago
edit: -deleted- this thread has been moved from the front-page, back 5 pages. There is no point making (nor leaving) good arguments in dead threads that no one can see nor take part in.
- Artemis2 10y ago
  Source?
- rhblake 10y ago
  Erosion of rights, eh? My country, Sweden, doesn't have a constitutional court; possibly because of some strange belief that our politicians can't make bad laws. (The Swedish supreme court cannot strike down laws, only interpret them.) The European Court of Justice is essentially the only thing that's stopping the Swedish government from extending mass surveillance even further. E.g., in 2014 the court ruled that mass data retention was violating basic human rights, killing the data retention directive. The Swedish government wanted to keep doing this anyway so they interpreted the ruling quite creatively, concluding that the Swedish implementation of the directive wasn't "bad enough", and forced ISPs/telcos to continue with mass data retention. This was challenged by a Swedish telco and right before Christmas the ECJ ruled in the telco's favor -- and then finally Swedish ISPs could (well, had to!) stop this particular form of surveillance. So, I'm happy to be in the EU, for that reason and many other reasons.
- adrinavarro 10y ago
  Huh? It's about creating an identity, a single market, and in the process, creating peace. I don't feel it is attempting to destroy national identity, if anything, it allows it to thrive (as long as it is compatible with the EU idea). Same goes with individual and national rights. EU policy provides a common framework, and if anything, it only overpowers states in favour of its citizens (see ECJ).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - krona 10y ago
sean_patel 10y ago
> For now there is crisis and disintegration wherever I look: the eurozone is chronically dysfunctional, sunlit Athens is plunged into misery, young Spaniards with doctorates are reduced to serving as waiters in London or Berlin, the children of Portuguese friends seek work in Brazil and Angola How much truth is there, to this statement i.e. "young Spaniards with PHDs are serving as Waiters in London or Berlin." Anyone? I find it quite shocking and want to know if the Author is engaging in fear-mongering, or if Europe is indeed falling apart and the part about Greeks, young Spaniards and Portuguese peeps is true.
- licnep 10y ago
  This is just anecdotal but I know that spanish people have trouble finding jobs and often stay in school longer while living with their parents. I know two spanish people with a BA, one went au-pairing in france, another one couldn't find a job and moved to morocco cause it was cheaper. So while it may be exagerated, there's probably some truth to that statement. The euro has destroyed the mediterrean economies.
  - akjainaj 10y ago
    >The euro has destroyed the mediterrean economies. That's implying Mediterranean economies would be better off without the Euro. I beg to differ.
    - walterstucco 10y ago
      Coming from a Mediterranean Country, I agree with you.
- RBerenguel 10y ago
  In my experience, young Spanish PhDs go abroad (indeed, I'm one of those and know plenty, although not sure about my youth by now) to work in a related field. Not to be waiters.
- pacificmint 10y ago
  I don't know about working as waiters, but Spanish unemployment is insane. The overall unemployment is around 19% currently, down from almost 27% in 2013. [1] The youth unemployment is around 44%, down from almost 56% in 2013. [2] I can't imagine what having half of all young people unable to find jobs will do to a country in the longer term. [1] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/unemployment-rate http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/unemployment-rate [2] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/youth-unemployment-rate http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/youth-unemployment-rat...
muninn_ 10y ago
You can't have short-term, mass migration without having something happen or change. We will see a huge change in European political landscape within the next few years. People have to slowly assimilate into a culture in order to allow for a gradual, peaceful change in that culture. Shocking these types of systems with any sort of migration is a recipient for instability. Please keep in mind that this isn't any sort of stupid anti-Muslim rhetoric, just a geopolitical observation. I think if you look at the United States you'll see a model of Muslim integration.
- ComradeTaco 10y ago
  I see an overall trend of of authoritarianism and nationalism as a response to immigration and an increasingly changing world. There's also a pretty heavy streak of anti-intellectualism as voters were encouraged to fundamentally reject experts that gave (IMHO well-founded) warnings about the ill-effects of Brexit and Trump. In short: Nationalism in, Globalism out.
  - matt_wulfeck 10y ago
    Even the idea of experts is being rightly criticized. Look at the flip-flopping recommendations of the US health dietary guidelines. What's true to the experts this year will be rejected some point later. Not only that, but when you have centralized power it becomes much easier to corrupt and politicize. There's wisdom to decentralization.
    - ComradeTaco 10y ago
      I agree that sometimes experts can make massive erroneous assumptions. Nutrition is a field that has suffered greatly from this. However, many of the predictions like currency devaluation and market loss, that were dismissed as expert scaremongering tactics, did occur. 1. The pound dropped 22% in value after the referendum [1] 2. A 13% drop in the FTSE from referendnum to present [2] [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-15/pound-drops-to-3-month-low-as-may-reported-to-seek- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-15/pound-dro... hard-brexit [2]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-13/what-can-the-u-k-stock-market-tell-you-about-brexit https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-13/what-can-...
neom 10y ago
I feel very weird that most of my recent comments have been book recommendations, never the less, as usual peripherally related. And yes, i know Europe is not a nation. Hence peripherally. :) https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227 https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/d...
DrNuke 10y ago
European Union is not working because too many different economies are in the eurozone. I was a fervent Pro-EU, now realising a federation of independent countries might work better than a superstate.
- bostand 10y ago
  EU in its simplest form is harmonization of rules and a bigger market for you to sell your goods. That part works exceptionally well. I don't see a single reason where that could be a negative in a mid to long term. The euro zone, which tries to connect some very different economies is not working that great but EU countries can decide to stay out of that part.
  - kristianc 10y ago
    The problem is that it's exceptionally difficult to have 1/ that functions well without 2/ The Euro was designed as a bulwark against currency speculators and people trying to arbitrage between imbalances in the different European economies.
    - bostand 10y ago
      Not difficult at all, many EU countries have decided to stay outside the euro zone. They are doing just fine.
      - walterstucco 10y ago
        not many, of the original EU founders only Sweden hasn't adopted euro. The other 6 out of 25 that are not using the euro are all ex communist countries. and other two (Monte negro and Kosovo) adopted euro without being part of EU.
        bostand 10y ago
        So you agree that it is by no means mandatory? Also, Denmark?
samdoidge 10y ago
Based on the following graph[1], yes. If the UK has voted to leave the with an EU favourability rating of 44, Greece at 27 and France at 38 will not be far behind. [1](http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/pm_2016-06-07_brexit-00/ http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-br...)
geff82 10y ago
Integrating all countries of eastern Europe at once and much too early was the beginning of the end. The countries that had been members before were getting so close economically and culturally that I think the current situation would not have been possible and a real united state might not have been only a dream. Politicians wanted too much and too early and did not take the population with them. I love my polish colleagues, but on a macro scale it did not really work.
- 0xD3ADB33F 10y ago
  Yes, the geopolitical motivations were pretty obvious. Of course you were labeled a hopeless conservative or conspiracy nutjob by the europhiles if you brought it up.
- dkb 10y ago
  > The countries that had been members before were getting so close economically and culturally How did the countries that had been members before got close culturally? What do you mean by that?
MarcusBrutus 10y ago
It most definitely is and it takes a very starry eyed sort of person to expect otherwise. The idea that 20 or so different people with different languages, religions, mores, histories, frames of reference, economies could somehow achieve monetary or much less political union under the rule of an un-elected and un-accountable bureaucracy of "commissioners" who rule by means of "directives" (you couldn't make it sound more soviet-y even if you tried) was beyond ludicrous from day 1. A modest trade union with some freedom of movement for qualified workers was achievable and maybe in the end it will settle to just that. In fact I think the soviety approach to building the whole thing ensured its demise. Diverse people can collaborate productively and profitably under win-win free market arrangements. But in the EU system there's too many zero-sum games being constantly played and decided on a purely political level (rather than by market forces) and that creates a lot of bad blood pretty quickly. The reluctance of Germans to bail out southern Europeans is just an instance of that.
- walterstucco 10y ago
  Tu quoque bruto filii mi I mean traitor
- kuschku 10y ago
  > un-elected and un-accountable bureaucracy So tell me, what is this? http://i.imgur.com/zhVYPwN.jpg http://i.imgur.com/zhVYPwN.jpg And what is this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhafgcPeXes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhafgcPeXes Or is it maybe actually elected, actually held accountable? > The idea that 20 or so different people with different languages, religions, mores, histories, frames of reference, economies could somehow achieve monetary or much less political union Aha, so how did the US do it? By the time it was formed, not even half of the people spoke a common language (There was quite a large amount of German and French immigrants in those days), it was full of groups with different religions and traditions.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    By the time it was formed, not even half of the people spoke a common language Are you counting Native Americans? I've never heard this before.
dkb 10y ago
Interesting article. I do believe that the EU will collapse, and that it is only a matter of time. First of all, there is not a single instance in History where a common currency, such as the Euro, succeeded. It always has collapsed. Different people in France have developed about this exact subject. I believe that more and more people are in favor of existing the EU. In the case of France, the first thing that people need to understand, is that a referendum was held in 2005 in France, and that the people have been asked if they wanted to integrate the EU. The No won by over 55%. Even though, Sarkozy signed the treaty and put France into the EU. EDIT: People also realize that people who run for presidency, only present a program that is actually the program of the EU... In the case of France, there are some specific laws and orientations that the EU is trying to push on the country, on different areas, such a Work law, or GMO. Those laws goes against what generations and generations of people fought for. Other people who run for president also put in their program stuff that would go against the EU program, and that is NOT APPLICABLE. If those were applied, the country would be fined heavily by the EU. Which I think, makes those politics either liers, or incompetents. The second thing is that more and more people realize that the way it works isn't sustainable, and this for a simple reason; having 28 countries together, who have to obey to the same set of rules (EU treaties), in different area such as Education, Immigration, Finance, Farming, etc... is not possible. Why? Because the interest of Estonia in Immigration are totally different than France's interests in that same area. Italy interests in finance are different than UK, etc... You cannot apply the same rules to everybody. A simple metaphor to understand the problem is this: - If you own your own house, you can do whatever you want and paint your outside walls as you like. - If you own an apartment in a 6 stories building, you probably wont have the freedom to put whatever window you want on it, and there will be a few rules that every story of the building will have to follow. - Now take a building with 28 stories, is it now harder to make everyone happy? or easier? If there is a leak under the roof, the owner of the last story will be mad and will want to do something about it. However, it won't be the others owners' priority to fix that. If the first floor has an issue of recurrent flooding, the people for the above stories won't have that as a priority either... Now, if you want to modify the European treaty, you must have the unanimity of all its members. How is that possible, knowing that each country does not have the same interests/concerns, in any area? It's not. And this is probably why UK tried to negotiate with the EU on a different set of topics, before actually holding the referendum. Not to mention that countries who are not in the EU, but are in Europe, are doing way better on a lot of aspects, than countries who are part of the EU. A lot of novel prices of economy also stood up and explained that the EU will collapse, and one of them even resigned from the BCE (Banque Centrale Europeenne), and joined a French political party who wants France to get out of the EU, using the Article 50 of the treaty.
tehabe 10y ago
I really hope this rise of Nationalism is just a phase. If not it won't end well for Europe and the world.
- rbanffy 10y ago
  Last time the body count was 25 million, right? I'm afraid we got much better at increasing body counts recently.
alphonsegaston 10y ago
Europe is learning the same thing that the United States did in its early days: it's impossible for a union of disparate states to survive without strong, overarching federal authority. It's as unpalatable to member states now as it was to the original colonies, but the alternative is to be subsumed by some outside, more centrally organized power. The Russians understand this, which is why they work to encourage nationalism among EU members. Once the infighting has weakened everyone, they can swoop into the vacuum and become this central authority.
- rbanffy 10y ago
  From what I hear, most of those who find the EU "unpalatable" have huge misconceptions about how it is organized, how the various bodies are staffed, how representatives are chosen and what the different bodies do. It's in part because national news give little focus to it and, therefore, its function becomes obscure, prime material for propaganda.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  The problem is that the EU was founded on the principle of never superseding national sovereignty or identity.
  - alphonsegaston 10y ago
    The US was founded on similar principles with regard to its states and had to revise its entire political system just thirteen years into its existence. When faced with various existential threats throughout its history, the US has always renegotiated these terms towards more centralized federal power. Europe faces a similar challenge now, and will either peacefully arrive at more centralized political authority, or dissolve and watch its former members be subsequently swallowed up by some larger outside power.
    - hollerith 10y ago
      Do you believe that Britain and France would submit to being swallowed up without using their nukes against whoever is trying to swallow them?
BjoernKW 10y ago
The EU and its member states will have to adapt. If they don't then yes: Disintegration and a return to rampant nationalism might be the consequence. The EU in its current incarnation as a centralised, geographically-defined bloc could be considered a relic of colonial, pre-globalization times (as much as nation states are a remnant of pre-industrial, pre-Information Age times). In order to be able to address the issues of the 21st century we need a much more decentralised structure, more devolution of government to the local level and more cooperation between these decentralised entities. Large cities in different countries and their respective populations often have much more in common than people from rural regions have in common with these city dwellers (as evidenced by Brexit). Yet through arbitrary national borders they're simply lumped together. The same applies to border regions. Why shouldn't companies and other organisations from different countries be able to work closer together more easily? Finally, why should organisations such as the EU be defined in terms of geography instead of in terms of shared values? As of now, Canada for instance would be a much better fit to the EU economically and in terms of values than some of the Eastern European member states. There are a few interesting articles about this subject and 'neo-medieval' overlapping authorities and multiple identities as a possible outcome: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329850-600-end-of-nations-is-there-an-alternative-to-countries/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329850-600-end-of-n... https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-possibility/ https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-possibility/ https://fieldnotes.mike-walsh.com/brexit-and-the-rise-of-the-city-state-d501a0354773#.y8yl3190c https://fieldnotes.mike-walsh.com/brexit-and-the-rise-of-the...
0xD3ADB33F 10y ago
As long as austerity is enforced under the eu-mark the disintegration is a certainty. The only way it could be saved would be to jettison the euro or at least the convergence criteria. Germany doesn't seem keen on a succesful EU, perhaps there's some underlaying anger over those last couple of attemps to ruin Europe. One can only guess.
badwulf 10y ago
> What Orbán has done, for example in his takeover of the media, undermines democracy itself. Those of us who actually lived in Hungary know that the media needs to be regulated to prevent the media from picking our next president. Orbán was the first politician who had the balls to call out the West on their irresponsible immigration policy, while everyone else was too busy being politically correct. The Austrian media blasted him, however when Austria started doing the same exact thing, they reported it differently. Look at the Buzzfeed "reporting": they knew the document was most likely fake, yet they decided to publish it anyway.
- majewsky 10y ago
  > Those of us who actually lived in Hungary know that the media needs to be regulated to prevent the media from picking our next president. So it's better if the president picks the next president?

60 points by themgt 10y ago

Based on my recent experience of visiting Europe - yes, it is. I stayed mostly in France, was there during the Brexit vote, and everyone I spoke to was pretty keen on exiting the EU, voting right-wing, and seeing it all crumble. They also have several separatist movements, especially in Brittany, which seems to be more anti-EU than anti-French...

akjainaj 10y ago
Living in one of the PIGS, I can tell there's not much going on here about leaving the EU. Nobody has seriously brought it up. That said, I see important problems in the EU going on now that must be solved: 1. I know the EU is completely against the "two-speed Europe". But that MUST be put in place if the EU is to survive. There's a clear divide between regions in the EU. It is a cultural divide in the way work is seen, perceived, in the way money is handled, on how corruption is seen by citizens, etc. That's why after decades the economies of the PIGS have not adjusted to the rest of the EU, and they probably will never adjust. It's a cultural thing that won't change. Also, I suppose rich and poor countries don't equally agree with the amount socialism/interventionism the EU should be establishing. For example being from one of the PIGS I like interventionism from the EU because I see local politicians/courts/etc as useless. If you go to court and the verdict is stupid, you can go to a European court. But I suppose people from the north like their local politicians and courts and don't like it when the EU interferes. 2. Many people don't like immigrants. Whether that's racism or not, or whether those people can be educated or not... that's irrelevant. The EU is literally shoving immigrants down people's throats. Immigration from A8 countries MUST be regulated (end of Schengen) and also countries should be able to decide if they want Muslim refugees or not. Remember this is just my opinion and what I've seen around me as a citizen of one of the PIGS.
- _delirium 10y ago
  I think #2 varies widely within the EU. Immigration from outside the EU (especially Muslim immigration) is a hot-button issue everywhere, but intra-EU immigration is a less contentious issue in many countries. In the UK there is a lot of opposition to immigration from eastern Europe in general (and the proverbial "Polish plumber" is a fixture of political debate), but that's not as big a worry in, say, Germany, where people are mostly worried about Syrians and not very concerned about Poles.
  - akjainaj 10y ago
    You are very correct, but it depends on what your country has received. My country for example received millions of Romanians/Bulgarians back in the day, so that's what people were against. There was a huge construction bubble, and they came en masse, leaving many locals without a job. As soon as the construction bubble popped, they left en masse. They also greatly increased the insecurity here, with really recurrent news about thefts committed by Romanians, pickpockets, etc. News were flooded with those events. So, you can imagine what the locals ended up thinking of them. Natives wouldn't say anything negative about rest of slavs, Poles, etc because they simply never met them.
- pound 10y ago
  for those wondering: PIGS - Portugal, Italy, Greece & Spain (some people jump to comments)
  - tritosomal 10y ago
    Yeah, trying to google that acronym would have been utterly futile. Why do smart people assume that their own familiarity with a subject is a suitable guideline for tossing around opaque acronyms without prior definition? Why are people just supposed to know the acronym?
    - grzm 10y ago
      The article defines the acronym: He points to the acronym PIGS, coined for four crisis-torn, Southern European debtor countries of the eurozone: Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain.
    - akjainaj 10y ago
      If you google "pigs eu" you can find what you are looking for. In any case, the term is defined in the article.
  - 0xD3ADB33F 10y ago
    Talk about a loaded acronym.
- gambiting 10y ago
  >>The EU is literally shoving immigrants down people's throats. Immigration from A8 countries MUST be regulated (end of Schengen) This attitude saddens me - regulation would most likely mean that I would need to get a visa to stay where I am, where I work and where I pay my taxes, which is not how I imagined EU. Just a few years ago, I felt "at home" wherever I went, who cared which nationality you were, you could walk into a government office in Germany, Spain, UK, France, and you would be treated the same as a local citizen. Now? It seems like we are becoming 2nd category citizens, despite the only difference between being a "foreigner" and "natural citizen" is the label on my passport.
- walterstucco 10y ago
  Coming from Italy I don't feel like a pig. Maybe Spanish and Portuguese feel different about themselves...
- rbanffy 10y ago
  > Many people don't like immigrants. Too bad they love buying and selling in the common market. Can't have the cake and eat it too. Edit: but they sure can downvote. Karma is an excellent fuel.
bsaul 10y ago
I suppose you didn't stay in France after the brexit. Seeing all the mess that it triggered, such as the fact that uk went behind france almost instantly in economic rankings, all this pretty much made everyone here realize those kind of votes do have consequences. Now what it triggered is also that every single politician talks about reforming europe ( borders mainly, but also politicaly). All in all, i'd say it pretty much tighten bounds across european countries than the opposite...until britain suddenly experience an extraordinary growth, that is.
api 10y ago
Question: what is the primary grievance against the EU?
- artursapek 10y ago
  I don't know about primary, but I think a big one is the EU forcing countries to meet a quota of "refugee" immigration. Poland for example is refusing to accept these immigrants and paying a pretty big fine for each one they turn away [1]. Other countries like France and Germany are buckling to the pressure from the EU and accepting them, and we've all seen how well that has worked out for them. So I think not having to take this crap from the EU is one attractive reason to leave. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/poland-refuses-to-take-a-single-refugee-because-of-security-fears-a7020076.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/poland-refuse...
  - gambiting 10y ago
    The interesting thing here that it's not "EU vs EU member countries" - members do come up with, and vote on ideas. It's not like evil EU parliament said that everyone has to take immigrants, so everyone now has to and that's it. The move came about because of the flood of immigrants coming to Italy and Greece, mostly - and serious concern that neither one of those two countries can deal with the problem on their own. It has been decided(democratically, by representatives from each member country, not some evil court of villains!) that other member states will help lessen the burden, by taking a certain quota of immigrants, so that Italy and Greece don't collapse(even more). Yet in some media(particularly in the UK) it's portrayed as EU telling member countries what to do, without any notion that those countries also voted on this issue and agreed to it.
    - blibble 10y ago
      > Yet in some media(particularly in the UK) it's portrayed as EU telling member countries what to do, without any notion that those countries also voted on this issue and agreed to it. this is true, but the EU institution used its power to force through a proposal which several countries were extremely upset with. this was the first real example of Qualified Majority Voting being used in a controversial way, resulting in a lot of people becoming upset... suddenly the EU could no longer be seen as an institution that works almost entirely on consensus it certainly modified my views on whether or not I wanted the EU institutions gaining more power, or even retaining the ones they have at the moment
bostand 10y ago
> everyone I spoke to was pretty keen on exiting the EU Exactly what kind of people did you talk to? I visited Paris after Brexit and outside some groups on the far right everyone where laughing at the crazy brittons... Many in Germany and France consider UK hindering advancement in EU, and consider the Brexit a god send
maxerickson 10y ago
How many people did you speak to? Were many of them associated with each other for one reason or another?
rbanffy 10y ago
I'm sorry for your experiences. Here in Ireland people seem to be very favorable to the EU. At the office we tender to call Brexit by more descriptive names such as Bruckup or Brusterfuck.

mpweiher 10y ago

No. Pro EU sentiment increased markedly in pretty much all of Europe post-Brexit[1], and hopefully national politicians will stop playing the silly "do bad/unpopular things and then blame them on the EU"-game. This game was thought to be without cost, now it is clear that it is not, and the ones who played it most extensively are paying the biggest price. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/brexit-causes-resurgence-in-pro-eu-leanings-across-continent https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/brexit-causes-...

yellow_viper 10y ago
Yes anti-EU rhetoric went down post-Brexit. But it's still very high, and will likely continue to rise once Brexit is settled. It's clear >and hopefully national politicians will stop They won't.
- mpweiher 10y ago
  > Yes anti-EU rhetoric went down post-Brexit. Nope, anti-EU rhetoric went up. It just wasn't effective as pro-EU sentiment in the population rose (from mostly already high baselines).

powertower 10y ago

edit: -deleted- this thread has been moved from the front-page, back 5 pages. There is no point making (nor leaving) good arguments in dead threads that no one can see nor take part in.

Artemis2 10y ago
Source?
rhblake 10y ago
Erosion of rights, eh? My country, Sweden, doesn't have a constitutional court; possibly because of some strange belief that our politicians can't make bad laws. (The Swedish supreme court cannot strike down laws, only interpret them.) The European Court of Justice is essentially the only thing that's stopping the Swedish government from extending mass surveillance even further. E.g., in 2014 the court ruled that mass data retention was violating basic human rights, killing the data retention directive. The Swedish government wanted to keep doing this anyway so they interpreted the ruling quite creatively, concluding that the Swedish implementation of the directive wasn't "bad enough", and forced ISPs/telcos to continue with mass data retention. This was challenged by a Swedish telco and right before Christmas the ECJ ruled in the telco's favor -- and then finally Swedish ISPs could (well, had to!) stop this particular form of surveillance. So, I'm happy to be in the EU, for that reason and many other reasons.
adrinavarro 10y ago
Huh? It's about creating an identity, a single market, and in the process, creating peace. I don't feel it is attempting to destroy national identity, if anything, it allows it to thrive (as long as it is compatible with the EU idea). Same goes with individual and national rights. EU policy provides a common framework, and if anything, it only overpowers states in favour of its citizens (see ECJ).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- krona 10y ago

sean_patel 10y ago

> For now there is crisis and disintegration wherever I look: the eurozone is chronically dysfunctional, sunlit Athens is plunged into misery, young Spaniards with doctorates are reduced to serving as waiters in London or Berlin, the children of Portuguese friends seek work in Brazil and Angola How much truth is there, to this statement i.e. "young Spaniards with PHDs are serving as Waiters in London or Berlin." Anyone? I find it quite shocking and want to know if the Author is engaging in fear-mongering, or if Europe is indeed falling apart and the part about Greeks, young Spaniards and Portuguese peeps is true.

licnep 10y ago
This is just anecdotal but I know that spanish people have trouble finding jobs and often stay in school longer while living with their parents. I know two spanish people with a BA, one went au-pairing in france, another one couldn't find a job and moved to morocco cause it was cheaper. So while it may be exagerated, there's probably some truth to that statement. The euro has destroyed the mediterrean economies.
- akjainaj 10y ago
  >The euro has destroyed the mediterrean economies. That's implying Mediterranean economies would be better off without the Euro. I beg to differ.
  - walterstucco 10y ago
    Coming from a Mediterranean Country, I agree with you.
RBerenguel 10y ago
In my experience, young Spanish PhDs go abroad (indeed, I'm one of those and know plenty, although not sure about my youth by now) to work in a related field. Not to be waiters.
pacificmint 10y ago
I don't know about working as waiters, but Spanish unemployment is insane. The overall unemployment is around 19% currently, down from almost 27% in 2013. [1] The youth unemployment is around 44%, down from almost 56% in 2013. [2] I can't imagine what having half of all young people unable to find jobs will do to a country in the longer term. [1] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/unemployment-rate http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/unemployment-rate [2] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/youth-unemployment-rate http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/youth-unemployment-rat...

muninn_ 10y ago

You can't have short-term, mass migration without having something happen or change. We will see a huge change in European political landscape within the next few years. People have to slowly assimilate into a culture in order to allow for a gradual, peaceful change in that culture. Shocking these types of systems with any sort of migration is a recipient for instability. Please keep in mind that this isn't any sort of stupid anti-Muslim rhetoric, just a geopolitical observation. I think if you look at the United States you'll see a model of Muslim integration.

ComradeTaco 10y ago
I see an overall trend of of authoritarianism and nationalism as a response to immigration and an increasingly changing world. There's also a pretty heavy streak of anti-intellectualism as voters were encouraged to fundamentally reject experts that gave (IMHO well-founded) warnings about the ill-effects of Brexit and Trump. In short: Nationalism in, Globalism out.
- matt_wulfeck 10y ago
  Even the idea of experts is being rightly criticized. Look at the flip-flopping recommendations of the US health dietary guidelines. What's true to the experts this year will be rejected some point later. Not only that, but when you have centralized power it becomes much easier to corrupt and politicize. There's wisdom to decentralization.
  - ComradeTaco 10y ago
    I agree that sometimes experts can make massive erroneous assumptions. Nutrition is a field that has suffered greatly from this. However, many of the predictions like currency devaluation and market loss, that were dismissed as expert scaremongering tactics, did occur. 1. The pound dropped 22% in value after the referendum [1] 2. A 13% drop in the FTSE from referendnum to present [2] [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-15/pound-drops-to-3-month-low-as-may-reported-to-seek- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-15/pound-dro... hard-brexit [2]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-13/what-can-the-u-k-stock-market-tell-you-about-brexit https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-13/what-can-...

neom 10y ago

I feel very weird that most of my recent comments have been book recommendations, never the less, as usual peripherally related. And yes, i know Europe is not a nation. Hence peripherally. :) https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227 https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/d...

DrNuke 10y ago

European Union is not working because too many different economies are in the eurozone. I was a fervent Pro-EU, now realising a federation of independent countries might work better than a superstate.

bostand 10y ago
EU in its simplest form is harmonization of rules and a bigger market for you to sell your goods. That part works exceptionally well. I don't see a single reason where that could be a negative in a mid to long term. The euro zone, which tries to connect some very different economies is not working that great but EU countries can decide to stay out of that part.
- kristianc 10y ago
  The problem is that it's exceptionally difficult to have 1/ that functions well without 2/ The Euro was designed as a bulwark against currency speculators and people trying to arbitrage between imbalances in the different European economies.
  - bostand 10y ago
    Not difficult at all, many EU countries have decided to stay outside the euro zone. They are doing just fine.
    - walterstucco 10y ago
      not many, of the original EU founders only Sweden hasn't adopted euro. The other 6 out of 25 that are not using the euro are all ex communist countries. and other two (Monte negro and Kosovo) adopted euro without being part of EU.
      - bostand 10y ago
        So you agree that it is by no means mandatory? Also, Denmark?

samdoidge 10y ago

Based on the following graph[1], yes. If the UK has voted to leave the with an EU favourability rating of 44, Greece at 27 and France at 38 will not be far behind. [1](http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/pm_2016-06-07_brexit-00/ http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-br...)

geff82 10y ago

Integrating all countries of eastern Europe at once and much too early was the beginning of the end. The countries that had been members before were getting so close economically and culturally that I think the current situation would not have been possible and a real united state might not have been only a dream. Politicians wanted too much and too early and did not take the population with them. I love my polish colleagues, but on a macro scale it did not really work.

0xD3ADB33F 10y ago
Yes, the geopolitical motivations were pretty obvious. Of course you were labeled a hopeless conservative or conspiracy nutjob by the europhiles if you brought it up.
dkb 10y ago
> The countries that had been members before were getting so close economically and culturally How did the countries that had been members before got close culturally? What do you mean by that?

MarcusBrutus 10y ago

It most definitely is and it takes a very starry eyed sort of person to expect otherwise. The idea that 20 or so different people with different languages, religions, mores, histories, frames of reference, economies could somehow achieve monetary or much less political union under the rule of an un-elected and un-accountable bureaucracy of "commissioners" who rule by means of "directives" (you couldn't make it sound more soviet-y even if you tried) was beyond ludicrous from day 1. A modest trade union with some freedom of movement for qualified workers was achievable and maybe in the end it will settle to just that. In fact I think the soviety approach to building the whole thing ensured its demise. Diverse people can collaborate productively and profitably under win-win free market arrangements. But in the EU system there's too many zero-sum games being constantly played and decided on a purely political level (rather than by market forces) and that creates a lot of bad blood pretty quickly. The reluctance of Germans to bail out southern Europeans is just an instance of that.

walterstucco 10y ago
Tu quoque bruto filii mi I mean traitor
kuschku 10y ago
> un-elected and un-accountable bureaucracy So tell me, what is this? http://i.imgur.com/zhVYPwN.jpg http://i.imgur.com/zhVYPwN.jpg And what is this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhafgcPeXes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhafgcPeXes Or is it maybe actually elected, actually held accountable? > The idea that 20 or so different people with different languages, religions, mores, histories, frames of reference, economies could somehow achieve monetary or much less political union Aha, so how did the US do it? By the time it was formed, not even half of the people spoke a common language (There was quite a large amount of German and French immigrants in those days), it was full of groups with different religions and traditions.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  By the time it was formed, not even half of the people spoke a common language Are you counting Native Americans? I've never heard this before.

dkb 10y ago

Interesting article. I do believe that the EU will collapse, and that it is only a matter of time. First of all, there is not a single instance in History where a common currency, such as the Euro, succeeded. It always has collapsed. Different people in France have developed about this exact subject. I believe that more and more people are in favor of existing the EU. In the case of France, the first thing that people need to understand, is that a referendum was held in 2005 in France, and that the people have been asked if they wanted to integrate the EU. The No won by over 55%. Even though, Sarkozy signed the treaty and put France into the EU. EDIT: People also realize that people who run for presidency, only present a program that is actually the program of the EU... In the case of France, there are some specific laws and orientations that the EU is trying to push on the country, on different areas, such a Work law, or GMO. Those laws goes against what generations and generations of people fought for. Other people who run for president also put in their program stuff that would go against the EU program, and that is NOT APPLICABLE. If those were applied, the country would be fined heavily by the EU. Which I think, makes those politics either liers, or incompetents. The second thing is that more and more people realize that the way it works isn't sustainable, and this for a simple reason; having 28 countries together, who have to obey to the same set of rules (EU treaties), in different area such as Education, Immigration, Finance, Farming, etc... is not possible. Why? Because the interest of Estonia in Immigration are totally different than France's interests in that same area. Italy interests in finance are different than UK, etc... You cannot apply the same rules to everybody. A simple metaphor to understand the problem is this: - If you own your own house, you can do whatever you want and paint your outside walls as you like. - If you own an apartment in a 6 stories building, you probably wont have the freedom to put whatever window you want on it, and there will be a few rules that every story of the building will have to follow. - Now take a building with 28 stories, is it now harder to make everyone happy? or easier? If there is a leak under the roof, the owner of the last story will be mad and will want to do something about it. However, it won't be the others owners' priority to fix that. If the first floor has an issue of recurrent flooding, the people for the above stories won't have that as a priority either... Now, if you want to modify the European treaty, you must have the unanimity of all its members. How is that possible, knowing that each country does not have the same interests/concerns, in any area? It's not. And this is probably why UK tried to negotiate with the EU on a different set of topics, before actually holding the referendum. Not to mention that countries who are not in the EU, but are in Europe, are doing way better on a lot of aspects, than countries who are part of the EU. A lot of novel prices of economy also stood up and explained that the EU will collapse, and one of them even resigned from the BCE (Banque Centrale Europeenne), and joined a French political party who wants France to get out of the EU, using the Article 50 of the treaty.

tehabe 10y ago

I really hope this rise of Nationalism is just a phase. If not it won't end well for Europe and the world.

rbanffy 10y ago
Last time the body count was 25 million, right? I'm afraid we got much better at increasing body counts recently.

alphonsegaston 10y ago

Europe is learning the same thing that the United States did in its early days: it's impossible for a union of disparate states to survive without strong, overarching federal authority. It's as unpalatable to member states now as it was to the original colonies, but the alternative is to be subsumed by some outside, more centrally organized power. The Russians understand this, which is why they work to encourage nationalism among EU members. Once the infighting has weakened everyone, they can swoop into the vacuum and become this central authority.

rbanffy 10y ago
From what I hear, most of those who find the EU "unpalatable" have huge misconceptions about how it is organized, how the various bodies are staffed, how representatives are chosen and what the different bodies do. It's in part because national news give little focus to it and, therefore, its function becomes obscure, prime material for propaganda.
dogma1138 10y ago
The problem is that the EU was founded on the principle of never superseding national sovereignty or identity.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  The US was founded on similar principles with regard to its states and had to revise its entire political system just thirteen years into its existence. When faced with various existential threats throughout its history, the US has always renegotiated these terms towards more centralized federal power. Europe faces a similar challenge now, and will either peacefully arrive at more centralized political authority, or dissolve and watch its former members be subsequently swallowed up by some larger outside power.
  - hollerith 10y ago
    Do you believe that Britain and France would submit to being swallowed up without using their nukes against whoever is trying to swallow them?

BjoernKW 10y ago

The EU and its member states will have to adapt. If they don't then yes: Disintegration and a return to rampant nationalism might be the consequence. The EU in its current incarnation as a centralised, geographically-defined bloc could be considered a relic of colonial, pre-globalization times (as much as nation states are a remnant of pre-industrial, pre-Information Age times). In order to be able to address the issues of the 21st century we need a much more decentralised structure, more devolution of government to the local level and more cooperation between these decentralised entities. Large cities in different countries and their respective populations often have much more in common than people from rural regions have in common with these city dwellers (as evidenced by Brexit). Yet through arbitrary national borders they're simply lumped together. The same applies to border regions. Why shouldn't companies and other organisations from different countries be able to work closer together more easily? Finally, why should organisations such as the EU be defined in terms of geography instead of in terms of shared values? As of now, Canada for instance would be a much better fit to the EU economically and in terms of values than some of the Eastern European member states. There are a few interesting articles about this subject and 'neo-medieval' overlapping authorities and multiple identities as a possible outcome: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329850-600-end-of-nations-is-there-an-alternative-to-countries/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329850-600-end-of-n... https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-possibility/ https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-possibility/ https://fieldnotes.mike-walsh.com/brexit-and-the-rise-of-the-city-state-d501a0354773#.y8yl3190c https://fieldnotes.mike-walsh.com/brexit-and-the-rise-of-the...

0xD3ADB33F 10y ago

As long as austerity is enforced under the eu-mark the disintegration is a certainty. The only way it could be saved would be to jettison the euro or at least the convergence criteria. Germany doesn't seem keen on a succesful EU, perhaps there's some underlaying anger over those last couple of attemps to ruin Europe. One can only guess.

badwulf 10y ago

> What Orbán has done, for example in his takeover of the media, undermines democracy itself. Those of us who actually lived in Hungary know that the media needs to be regulated to prevent the media from picking our next president. Orbán was the first politician who had the balls to call out the West on their irresponsible immigration policy, while everyone else was too busy being politically correct. The Austrian media blasted him, however when Austria started doing the same exact thing, they reported it differently. Look at the Buzzfeed "reporting": they knew the document was most likely fake, yet they decided to publish it anyway.

majewsky 10y ago
> Those of us who actually lived in Hungary know that the media needs to be regulated to prevent the media from picking our next president. So it's better if the president picks the next president?