3 ms·
It depends. The questions is about institutional reform and how possible it is. I do not think the current EU will evolve in a good direction. I prefer countrie
by nickik 10y ago
It depends. The questions is about institutional reform and how possible it is. I do not think the current EU will evolve in a good direction. I prefer countries to leave and establish new bilateral treaties along the same lines.
Maybe after the EU has failed we can have a new attempted that people will actually get on board with.
- raverbashing 10y agoWhile I think that the EU should not (and if they try they won't be able to) try and become a "super country" and the bureaucracy can be excessive (but some of it is needed) it's a good idea in principle > I prefer countries to leave and establish new bilateral treaties along the same lines So that they have all the obligations of a member but no say on the discussions?
- nickik 10y ago> So that they have all the obligations of a member but no say on the discussions? Not sure what you mean. Bilateral treats that are single purpose have many advantages over tying everything into a centralized superstructure. It would be far better if people could vote on these individually and accept or reject them as needed. This is hardly possible with the current EU.
- raverbashing 10y agoBilateral treaties between n countries would mean a total of n*(n-1)/2 deals If you have more than 3 countries, it's useful to have a common set of rules instead of just bilateralizing all deals (Which doesn't mean all rules really need to be centralized, not all EU countries adopt the Euro, for example However, when you sign a BT with the EU, your power on the decisions is diminished, but you still have to pay to be an "associated member" (that's what I meant above)