4 ms·

What exactly "needs to change"? When I see people complain about the EU it's usually about "the EU taking their sovereignty and imposing stuff on them". So if

by mtgx 10y ago

What exactly "needs to change"? When I see people complain about the EU it's usually about "the EU taking their sovereignty and imposing stuff on them". So if "things are going to change" that means the EU would have to become less like the U.S. (a federal entity), and more like an aggregate of wildly different cultures and regulations (so more like the pre-EU Europe). Is that really a good thing? And do things "need to change" that way? Or is more education necessary about why the EU needs to become more homogeneous and less heterogeneous? I can say one thing - if EU states remain wildly different from each other in culture, language, and regulations, the EU will continue to remain a much less appealing market than the US. And it's not so much that the laws are "stricter" (like say the privacy ones), as it is about the laws being different in each country, and making it hard for a company to be compliant with all of them. And I think that means fewer options and fewer quality products for Europeans in the end (you'll be stuck with your locally-made products).

RobertoG 10y ago
Of course, you can find all kind of opinions, but it seems to me, that the EU (more specifically the Euroarea) could be just a loose commercial and travel area without a common currency or a real federation with economics stabilizer between regions and a real democratic mandate. What it can't be is something in the middle, like it's now.
sparkling 10y ago
What the EU is trying to do has been done in the past and it has failed. The EU as it is right now is becoming the next Sovient Union. A undemocratic, centralised, bureaucratic superstate that strips the people from their sovereignty, independence, cultural and ethnic traditions. Further, you seem to assume that without the EU, trade between countries would somehow radically decrease, i don't see that happening. The European Economic Area (EEA) and the Schengen treaty exist independently from the EU. Norway and Switzerland are not members of the EU, yet they trade perfectly fine with others. The EU is not necessary for free trade. PS: Feel free to downvote, but at least make an argument.
- d215 10y ago
  > What the EU is trying to do has been done in the past and it has failed. First, If we would never try what in the past has failed then we would be really in a very stagnant state. Second, the EU has not failed, the EU is still the main reason for the prosperity most of its members have gained and still continue to gain after WWII. That it has had some backlashes recently does not mean at all that it has failed. > The EU is not necessary for free trade. It is not. It is however necessary for a internal economic market that guarantees the free flow of capital and labor, which is much wider/different in scope than free trade. Free trade can be arranged with a few trade treaties in neo liberal style.
  - sparkling 10y ago
    > It is however necessary for a internal economic market that guarantees the free flow of capital and labor That is, by definition, the purpose of the European Economic Area. Not the EU.
    - germanier 10y ago
      Which (apart from agriculture and fishery) regularly incorporates the EU acquis as an integral part of how it's set up. I would more accurately describe the purpose of the EEA as "provide a way of EU membership without calling it such".
  - petre 10y ago
    Austria Hungary has failed. The Soviet Union has failed even though everybody in it was speaking Russian, which is not the case with the EU. The EU will fail if it continues like this, with massive centralization of power. The difference is that unlike Austria Hungary and the USSR, it does not have a standing army to back its power and member states will leave when economic crisis hits and it's no longer in their best interests to stay.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > The EU will fail if it continues like this, with massive centralization of power. I keep hearing this argument, but I've never heard any supporting arguments. What evidence is there that "sovereignty" is optimal at the administrative scale of modern-day nation-states and not EU-sized scales, or going the other direction, at provincial, city or district levels?
roryisok 10y ago
> if EU states remain wildly different from each other in culture, language, and regulations, the EU will continue to remain a much less appealing market than the US. Sounds like you're advocating erasing the cultural and linguistic variety of the member states in favour of a common language and culture so that American companies can sell things more easily?
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> What exactly "needs to change"? The EU feels out of touch, unresponsive, "undemocratic". Whether it is or not isn't the issue; it feels that way to too many people. Many people therefore feel very little emotional affinity with the EU. If the EU is going to survive, that needs to change, because it opens the door to anti-EU populists in several countries. If enough win, the EU could become a skeleton of what it is now.

by mtgx 10y ago

RobertoG 10y ago

Of course, you can find all kind of opinions, but it seems to me, that the EU (more specifically the Euroarea) could be just a loose commercial and travel area without a common currency or a real federation with economics stabilizer between regions and a real democratic mandate. What it can't be is something in the middle, like it's now.

sparkling 10y ago

What the EU is trying to do has been done in the past and it has failed. The EU as it is right now is becoming the next Sovient Union. A undemocratic, centralised, bureaucratic superstate that strips the people from their sovereignty, independence, cultural and ethnic traditions. Further, you seem to assume that without the EU, trade between countries would somehow radically decrease, i don't see that happening. The European Economic Area (EEA) and the Schengen treaty exist independently from the EU. Norway and Switzerland are not members of the EU, yet they trade perfectly fine with others. The EU is not necessary for free trade. PS: Feel free to downvote, but at least make an argument.

d215 10y ago
> What the EU is trying to do has been done in the past and it has failed. First, If we would never try what in the past has failed then we would be really in a very stagnant state. Second, the EU has not failed, the EU is still the main reason for the prosperity most of its members have gained and still continue to gain after WWII. That it has had some backlashes recently does not mean at all that it has failed. > The EU is not necessary for free trade. It is not. It is however necessary for a internal economic market that guarantees the free flow of capital and labor, which is much wider/different in scope than free trade. Free trade can be arranged with a few trade treaties in neo liberal style.
- sparkling 10y ago
  > It is however necessary for a internal economic market that guarantees the free flow of capital and labor That is, by definition, the purpose of the European Economic Area. Not the EU.
  - germanier 10y ago
    Which (apart from agriculture and fishery) regularly incorporates the EU acquis as an integral part of how it's set up. I would more accurately describe the purpose of the EEA as "provide a way of EU membership without calling it such".
- petre 10y ago
  Austria Hungary has failed. The Soviet Union has failed even though everybody in it was speaking Russian, which is not the case with the EU. The EU will fail if it continues like this, with massive centralization of power. The difference is that unlike Austria Hungary and the USSR, it does not have a standing army to back its power and member states will leave when economic crisis hits and it's no longer in their best interests to stay.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > The EU will fail if it continues like this, with massive centralization of power. I keep hearing this argument, but I've never heard any supporting arguments. What evidence is there that "sovereignty" is optimal at the administrative scale of modern-day nation-states and not EU-sized scales, or going the other direction, at provincial, city or district levels?

roryisok 10y ago

> if EU states remain wildly different from each other in culture, language, and regulations, the EU will continue to remain a much less appealing market than the US. Sounds like you're advocating erasing the cultural and linguistic variety of the member states in favour of a common language and culture so that American companies can sell things more easily?

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

> What exactly "needs to change"? The EU feels out of touch, unresponsive, "undemocratic". Whether it is or not isn't the issue; it feels that way to too many people. Many people therefore feel very little emotional affinity with the EU. If the EU is going to survive, that needs to change, because it opens the door to anti-EU populists in several countries. If enough win, the EU could become a skeleton of what it is now.