5 ms·

This is such a pity. European Union is (was ?) an incredible achievement. I don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common destiny

This is such a pity. European Union is (was ?) an incredible achievement. I don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common destiny and a shared set of values is. I hope the best for Europe and UK on their separate path. Given the mess, a clean cut is probably in the best interest of both sides

coldtea 10y ago
>This is such a pity. European Union is (was ?) an incredible achievement. I don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common destiny and a shared set of values is. Only we never done that. We just allowed for easy border access, united a few laws, and had central bureaucrats and heavier countries step on the throats of lesser ones.
- iaskwhy 10y ago
  While I agree with what you said, I believe the UK never acted as a heavier country during all these years. I understand why if the reason is purely political and based on winning elections but winning in the short terms led us to where we are now. I'm sure Cameron got himself a nice surprise.
- the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
  Except that's absolutely incorrect and repeating these things won't make it any more true.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    That's hardly an argument. Sounds more like 'lalala' hands in the ears denial. Germany has been pushing peripheral countries around and controlling central aspects of European policy for decades, even bullying France into compliance. And, of course, containing Germany, which brought war upon Europe twice in the 20th century, was a stated goal of the 1950s European politicians and diplomats that designed EU and its early precursors (E.g. "The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany.").
    - raverbashing 10y ago
      Ooh Germany the "big bad bully boohoo" The funny thing is Germany is more contained inside the EU than outside it.
- sgift 10y ago
  > heavier countries step on the throats of lesser ones. The opposite is usually lamented in the heavier countries, e.g. here in Germany it is often lamented that a German voters vote is less important than that of a voter in a small country like Luxembourg due to the way EU representation is structured. Additionally, the voting process in the European council is structured so that bigger countries cannot just impose their will in smaller ones (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union#Treaty_of_Nice_.282003.E2.80.932014.2F2017.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E... for details).
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >The opposite is usually lamented in the heavier countries, e.g. here in Germany it is often lamented that a German voters vote is less important than that of a voter in a small country like Luxembourg due to the way EU representation is structured. All sides can lament, but the numbers speak for themselves.
    - sgift 10y ago
      Correct, here is what the numbers say: 'The apportionment of seats is not proportional to each state's population, nor does it reflect any particular mathematical formula; however, it is stated in the treaties that distribution of seats should be "degressively proportional" to the population of the member states. The process can be compared to the composition of the electoral college used to elect the President of the United States of America in that, pro rata, the smaller state received more places in the electoral college than the more populous states.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_...
      - coldtea 10y ago
        Only the European Parliament doesn't take the real decisions. There's the EC and bureaucratic ad-hoc groups that nobody appointed like the Eurogroup (an informal assembly of eurozone fin-mins with super powers that's not legitimized anywhere officially), the council of the EU (composed by state leaders and making decisions where strong countries like Germany and France have disproportionate influence using lackey satellite countries or debtors they control), etc. Here's another Wikipedia link for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_Euro...
- NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  I am yet to understand how the EU makes it easier for bigger countries to step on the small ones. Do you think Germany wouldn't be able to throw its weight around to push Poland, Czechia or Slovakia to do whatever they want to? Who would legally put an opposition to that? The lack of an existing legal framework agreed upon all actors would mean there's no deterrent for an escalation if, let's say, France or UK decided to side with their Eastern colleagues and get serious about it. Of course I don't expect you to be able to explain it, because if anything the EU has given voice and veto power to small EU countries.
  - blibble 10y ago
    the veto's power has grossly exaggerated, since the Treaty of Lisbon most decisions are now made using Qualified Majority Voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union#Policy_areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E... this is how the spectacularly unpopular migrant relocation was forced through against Eastern Europe's objections
    - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
      Thanks for sharing! Some might argue that lessens small countries' power to streamline the decision making. Those would be the same that criticised the EU during the CETA negotiations and the whole Wallonia potential veto. Nothing is black or white indeed.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >I am yet to understand how the EU makes it easier for bigger countries to step on the small ones. Do you think Germany wouldn't be able to throw its weight around to push Poland, Czechia or Slovakia to do whatever they want to? Who would legally put an opposition to that? Those countries themselves -- and any other state actor, that is not tied by a bureaucracy they don't control but Germany does. >The lack of an existing legal framework agreed upon all actors would mean there's no deterrent for an escalation if, let's say, France or UK decided to side with their Eastern colleagues and get serious about it. Only then it would mean war or close, and the aggression and control would be evident (and costly). Whereas within a "existing legal framework" under your control (including controlling several lesser states to always vote for your interests), and with you controlling the centralized "purse" of Europe as well as its monetary policy, you get to push your agenda more effectively.
- YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
  I'm from one of those "lesser" countries - Greece. I can assure you that nobody "stepped on our throat". For years we thrived as part of the EU, until the economic crisis hit and messed it all up. The Germans actually tried to help, in the way they thought was best, and despite appearances of heavy-handedness, nobody tried to force us to leave, which would have been the end of us. If you remember what happened a couple of years ago, when Syriza came to power, and Yiannis Varoufakis became finance minister, we threatened to leave the EU if our (vague and silly) terms were not accepted. The rest of the EU refused steadfastly, but nobody ever voiced any desire to make us leave the union. You can contrast this with what is happening right now. When the UK voted for Brexit, the rest of the EU breathed a collective sigh of relief and wished them good riddance. In Brussels they could hardly keep themselves from laughing and dancing a jig, that the great European troublemaker had finally decided to jump over a cliff, feet-first, entirely of its own volition. Nothing like that happened when Grexit was afoot. Nobody was laughing, everyone was waiting patiently for our national tantrum to abate. Angela Merkel, that evil ogre of a woman who wanted to roast our babies over an open fire [1], waited patiently for our juvenile prime minister to get his shit together and learn how to rule a country. Nobody wanted to harm the Geeks and nobody tried to harm the Greeks- all harm that came to us we did to ourselves, or it was a result of the economic crisis. Your comment is blaming the wrong people for our woes. ___________ [1] cf. all of the Greek press at the time.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >I'm from one of those "lesser" countries - Greece. I can assure you that nobody "stepped on our throat". For years we thrived as part of the EU, until the economic crisis hit and messed it all up. "Thrived" just meant the Greek state could for a few years borrow money more easily because of the Euro, nothing substantial that one could actually call "thriving". The actual health of the economy (inflated numbers from borrowing aside) was in its worst condition ever. For the Greek economy it was the beginning of the end, as at the same time, The euro, and the lack of control of its own monetary policy, sealed the inability of Greece to ever repay its debt. And of course made its exports, lackluster even before, collapse completely. >The Germans actually tried to help, in the way they thought was best Actually they merely tried to enforce their economic ideology of austerity upon further austerity, totally in spite of dire results and being totally not workable, all the while making billions in the process for the German economy, plus insuring its banks against the crisis with EU money (transferring money from the European public to the financiers). http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/11/despite-losing-tens-of-billions-of-e-germany-is-making-a-profit-out-of-the-greek-crisis/#6275d9452b4a http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/11/despite-l... Greece is now an ex-country on life support giving the semblance of a European country. >Nobody wanted to harm the Geeks and nobody tried to harm the Greeks The world is not some hugging and loving place, international politics and finances even more so. Those doing the harm could not care less if they were harming Greeks, Irish, Italians, etc. specifically, so that much is true: they didn't actively try to "harm the Greeks". It was a matter of pursuing their own financial interests, as always is. The Greek public were just imbeciles in recognizing that, and the Greek politicians where profiting just the same.
- shadowmint 10y ago
  Consider; just because it hasn't worked out perfectly doesn't mean that the issues that lead to the formation of EU didn't exist, or don't exist now. Is breaking apart so that each little insignificantly economic nobody can be bullied by the rest of the world a better solution? What's your solution to the problem? It's pretty easy to complain, but coming up with actual solutions is way way harder.
- donmatito 10y ago
  >We just allowed for easy border access Do you realize you used 'just', talking about countries that were at war with each other for their entire history? When I said "we don't realize", I was talking about you
chii 10y ago
> a shared set of values is. except they never had this - the richer countries see their contribution as a drain (e.g., the almost collapse for the greeks), unlike the american state, which distributes the federal taxes somewhat more "evently", and there's no "Us vs Them" mentality.
- rayiner 10y ago
  That's not true at all. There is a lot of conflict in the US relating to federal spending in "blue states" versus "red states." Red states tend to be poorer, have more agriculture, and have more military bases, so they get disproportionately more federal spending relative to their taxes paid.
- derrickdirge 10y ago
  > the american state, which distributes the federal taxes somewhat more "evently", and there's no "Us vs Them" mentality. The level of naïveté displayed in this comment is shocking.
  - alphonsegaston 10y ago
    In threads about the EU/Brexit, I've seen repeated arguments about how the EU can't function like the United States because of how much more unified Americans are now and historically. It all quite laughably ignores how all of our stability has only come from increased federal authority whenever we've had similar crises. I guess Europeans are as ignorant of American history as we are of their's.
    - detritus 10y ago
      Not really — that's the exact crux of the argument for many British and Germans, etc: "Is the EU a full federal project, with all of the responsibilities and expectations that encompasses?". In both countries and the likes of Greece, the answer has been a resounding "NO!" which leads to the inevitable and existing impasse the continent currently faces. America is politically able to let, for example, Detroit, die a lingering death. For obvious reasons the Greeks would rather a similar fate wasn't in store for their country. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" as a famous early 90s child philosopher put it.
andriesm 10y ago
A clean cut is certainly in both sides best interest, and the UK is clear they want that, but EU is not so clear about it, because they depend on implied threats to keep some of the other members from leaving too. Free trade is fantastic, but a unified monatory policy is a disaster - it cannot work- not even on paper.
- rwmj 10y ago
  Don't confuse the EU and the Euro.
  - whositis 10y ago
    They are intrinsically linked. The Euro is another tool to get to the endgame - a United States of Europe, controlled and dominated by Germany. The EU was never about trade. It's about power, control and globalization. Removing democracy from the peoples of Europe.
- NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  Where do you draw the line for a common monetary policy? Would regions like Madrid or Barcelona, easily at e.g. Dutch level, have to share monetary policy with Andalucia or Extremadura - two of the poorer regions in Europe? Are there studies pointing to when or where a common monetary policy stops making sense?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
whositis 10y ago
> I don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common destiny and a shared set of values is. And that's precisely why it is failing, and will continue to fail. Imagine combining Canada and the USA into a single country.
- TillE 10y ago
  The EU is not "a single country", obviously. I have no trouble imagining a close EU-like relationship between the US and Canada; until recently, you didn't even need a passport to travel between the two. They're very similar countries which could work together on almost everything.
  - whositis 10y ago
    > The EU is not "a single country" That's certainly the endgame. What couldn't be achieved by world wars, is being achieved by the EU project. > US and Canada... very similar countries I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic here. And if not, don't you think it's pretty disgusting to suggest the culture of Canadians and Americans is pretty similar? Don't you think that culture is something to cherish and protect, rather than pretend doesn't exist?
- donmatito 10y ago
  >Imagine combining Canada and the USA into a single country. this is not very hard to imagine
  - whositis 10y ago
    You don't think maybe some Canadians would be against that idea?

coldtea 10y ago

>This is such a pity. European Union is (was ?) an incredible achievement. I don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common destiny and a shared set of values is. Only we never done that. We just allowed for easy border access, united a few laws, and had central bureaucrats and heavier countries step on the throats of lesser ones.

iaskwhy 10y ago
While I agree with what you said, I believe the UK never acted as a heavier country during all these years. I understand why if the reason is purely political and based on winning elections but winning in the short terms led us to where we are now. I'm sure Cameron got himself a nice surprise.
the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
Except that's absolutely incorrect and repeating these things won't make it any more true.
- coldtea 10y ago
  That's hardly an argument. Sounds more like 'lalala' hands in the ears denial. Germany has been pushing peripheral countries around and controlling central aspects of European policy for decades, even bullying France into compliance. And, of course, containing Germany, which brought war upon Europe twice in the 20th century, was a stated goal of the 1950s European politicians and diplomats that designed EU and its early precursors (E.g. "The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany.").
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    Ooh Germany the "big bad bully boohoo" The funny thing is Germany is more contained inside the EU than outside it.
sgift 10y ago
> heavier countries step on the throats of lesser ones. The opposite is usually lamented in the heavier countries, e.g. here in Germany it is often lamented that a German voters vote is less important than that of a voter in a small country like Luxembourg due to the way EU representation is structured. Additionally, the voting process in the European council is structured so that bigger countries cannot just impose their will in smaller ones (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union#Treaty_of_Nice_.282003.E2.80.932014.2F2017.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E... for details).
- coldtea 10y ago
  >The opposite is usually lamented in the heavier countries, e.g. here in Germany it is often lamented that a German voters vote is less important than that of a voter in a small country like Luxembourg due to the way EU representation is structured. All sides can lament, but the numbers speak for themselves.
  - sgift 10y ago
    Correct, here is what the numbers say: 'The apportionment of seats is not proportional to each state's population, nor does it reflect any particular mathematical formula; however, it is stated in the treaties that distribution of seats should be "degressively proportional" to the population of the member states. The process can be compared to the composition of the electoral college used to elect the President of the United States of America in that, pro rata, the smaller state received more places in the electoral college than the more populous states.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_...
    - coldtea 10y ago
      Only the European Parliament doesn't take the real decisions. There's the EC and bureaucratic ad-hoc groups that nobody appointed like the Eurogroup (an informal assembly of eurozone fin-mins with super powers that's not legitimized anywhere officially), the council of the EU (composed by state leaders and making decisions where strong countries like Germany and France have disproportionate influence using lackey satellite countries or debtors they control), etc. Here's another Wikipedia link for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_Euro...
NetStrikeForce 10y ago
I am yet to understand how the EU makes it easier for bigger countries to step on the small ones. Do you think Germany wouldn't be able to throw its weight around to push Poland, Czechia or Slovakia to do whatever they want to? Who would legally put an opposition to that? The lack of an existing legal framework agreed upon all actors would mean there's no deterrent for an escalation if, let's say, France or UK decided to side with their Eastern colleagues and get serious about it. Of course I don't expect you to be able to explain it, because if anything the EU has given voice and veto power to small EU countries.
- blibble 10y ago
  the veto's power has grossly exaggerated, since the Treaty of Lisbon most decisions are now made using Qualified Majority Voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union#Policy_areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E... this is how the spectacularly unpopular migrant relocation was forced through against Eastern Europe's objections
  - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
    Thanks for sharing! Some might argue that lessens small countries' power to streamline the decision making. Those would be the same that criticised the EU during the CETA negotiations and the whole Wallonia potential veto. Nothing is black or white indeed.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I am yet to understand how the EU makes it easier for bigger countries to step on the small ones. Do you think Germany wouldn't be able to throw its weight around to push Poland, Czechia or Slovakia to do whatever they want to? Who would legally put an opposition to that? Those countries themselves -- and any other state actor, that is not tied by a bureaucracy they don't control but Germany does. >The lack of an existing legal framework agreed upon all actors would mean there's no deterrent for an escalation if, let's say, France or UK decided to side with their Eastern colleagues and get serious about it. Only then it would mean war or close, and the aggression and control would be evident (and costly). Whereas within a "existing legal framework" under your control (including controlling several lesser states to always vote for your interests), and with you controlling the centralized "purse" of Europe as well as its monetary policy, you get to push your agenda more effectively.
YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
I'm from one of those "lesser" countries - Greece. I can assure you that nobody "stepped on our throat". For years we thrived as part of the EU, until the economic crisis hit and messed it all up. The Germans actually tried to help, in the way they thought was best, and despite appearances of heavy-handedness, nobody tried to force us to leave, which would have been the end of us. If you remember what happened a couple of years ago, when Syriza came to power, and Yiannis Varoufakis became finance minister, we threatened to leave the EU if our (vague and silly) terms were not accepted. The rest of the EU refused steadfastly, but nobody ever voiced any desire to make us leave the union. You can contrast this with what is happening right now. When the UK voted for Brexit, the rest of the EU breathed a collective sigh of relief and wished them good riddance. In Brussels they could hardly keep themselves from laughing and dancing a jig, that the great European troublemaker had finally decided to jump over a cliff, feet-first, entirely of its own volition. Nothing like that happened when Grexit was afoot. Nobody was laughing, everyone was waiting patiently for our national tantrum to abate. Angela Merkel, that evil ogre of a woman who wanted to roast our babies over an open fire [1], waited patiently for our juvenile prime minister to get his shit together and learn how to rule a country. Nobody wanted to harm the Geeks and nobody tried to harm the Greeks- all harm that came to us we did to ourselves, or it was a result of the economic crisis. Your comment is blaming the wrong people for our woes. ___________ [1] cf. all of the Greek press at the time.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I'm from one of those "lesser" countries - Greece. I can assure you that nobody "stepped on our throat". For years we thrived as part of the EU, until the economic crisis hit and messed it all up. "Thrived" just meant the Greek state could for a few years borrow money more easily because of the Euro, nothing substantial that one could actually call "thriving". The actual health of the economy (inflated numbers from borrowing aside) was in its worst condition ever. For the Greek economy it was the beginning of the end, as at the same time, The euro, and the lack of control of its own monetary policy, sealed the inability of Greece to ever repay its debt. And of course made its exports, lackluster even before, collapse completely. >The Germans actually tried to help, in the way they thought was best Actually they merely tried to enforce their economic ideology of austerity upon further austerity, totally in spite of dire results and being totally not workable, all the while making billions in the process for the German economy, plus insuring its banks against the crisis with EU money (transferring money from the European public to the financiers). http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/11/despite-losing-tens-of-billions-of-e-germany-is-making-a-profit-out-of-the-greek-crisis/#6275d9452b4a http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/11/despite-l... Greece is now an ex-country on life support giving the semblance of a European country. >Nobody wanted to harm the Geeks and nobody tried to harm the Greeks The world is not some hugging and loving place, international politics and finances even more so. Those doing the harm could not care less if they were harming Greeks, Irish, Italians, etc. specifically, so that much is true: they didn't actively try to "harm the Greeks". It was a matter of pursuing their own financial interests, as always is. The Greek public were just imbeciles in recognizing that, and the Greek politicians where profiting just the same.
shadowmint 10y ago
Consider; just because it hasn't worked out perfectly doesn't mean that the issues that lead to the formation of EU didn't exist, or don't exist now. Is breaking apart so that each little insignificantly economic nobody can be bullied by the rest of the world a better solution? What's your solution to the problem? It's pretty easy to complain, but coming up with actual solutions is way way harder.
donmatito 10y ago
>We just allowed for easy border access Do you realize you used 'just', talking about countries that were at war with each other for their entire history? When I said "we don't realize", I was talking about you

chii 10y ago

> a shared set of values is. except they never had this - the richer countries see their contribution as a drain (e.g., the almost collapse for the greeks), unlike the american state, which distributes the federal taxes somewhat more "evently", and there's no "Us vs Them" mentality.

rayiner 10y ago
That's not true at all. There is a lot of conflict in the US relating to federal spending in "blue states" versus "red states." Red states tend to be poorer, have more agriculture, and have more military bases, so they get disproportionately more federal spending relative to their taxes paid.
derrickdirge 10y ago
> the american state, which distributes the federal taxes somewhat more "evently", and there's no "Us vs Them" mentality. The level of naïveté displayed in this comment is shocking.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  In threads about the EU/Brexit, I've seen repeated arguments about how the EU can't function like the United States because of how much more unified Americans are now and historically. It all quite laughably ignores how all of our stability has only come from increased federal authority whenever we've had similar crises. I guess Europeans are as ignorant of American history as we are of their's.
  - detritus 10y ago
    Not really — that's the exact crux of the argument for many British and Germans, etc: "Is the EU a full federal project, with all of the responsibilities and expectations that encompasses?". In both countries and the likes of Greece, the answer has been a resounding "NO!" which leads to the inevitable and existing impasse the continent currently faces. America is politically able to let, for example, Detroit, die a lingering death. For obvious reasons the Greeks would rather a similar fate wasn't in store for their country. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" as a famous early 90s child philosopher put it.

andriesm 10y ago

A clean cut is certainly in both sides best interest, and the UK is clear they want that, but EU is not so clear about it, because they depend on implied threats to keep some of the other members from leaving too. Free trade is fantastic, but a unified monatory policy is a disaster - it cannot work- not even on paper.

rwmj 10y ago
Don't confuse the EU and the Euro.
- whositis 10y ago
  They are intrinsically linked. The Euro is another tool to get to the endgame - a United States of Europe, controlled and dominated by Germany. The EU was never about trade. It's about power, control and globalization. Removing democracy from the peoples of Europe.
NetStrikeForce 10y ago
Where do you draw the line for a common monetary policy? Would regions like Madrid or Barcelona, easily at e.g. Dutch level, have to share monetary policy with Andalucia or Extremadura - two of the poorer regions in Europe? Are there studies pointing to when or where a common monetary policy stops making sense?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

whositis 10y ago

> I don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common destiny and a shared set of values is. And that's precisely why it is failing, and will continue to fail. Imagine combining Canada and the USA into a single country.

TillE 10y ago
The EU is not "a single country", obviously. I have no trouble imagining a close EU-like relationship between the US and Canada; until recently, you didn't even need a passport to travel between the two. They're very similar countries which could work together on almost everything.
- whositis 10y ago
  > The EU is not "a single country" That's certainly the endgame. What couldn't be achieved by world wars, is being achieved by the EU project. > US and Canada... very similar countries I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic here. And if not, don't you think it's pretty disgusting to suggest the culture of Canadians and Americans is pretty similar? Don't you think that culture is something to cherish and protect, rather than pretend doesn't exist?
donmatito 10y ago
>Imagine combining Canada and the USA into a single country. this is not very hard to imagine
- whositis 10y ago
  You don't think maybe some Canadians would be against that idea?