10 ms·

When one country can hold up the progress of the entire 27 member bloc because of their own self-interests the project looks very weak.

ainiriand 8y ago
Can you elaborate? What kind of progress?
- swarnie_ 8y ago
  In this case its a tax on US technology companies.
pfortuny 8y ago
Ever heard of Brexit? Some people are a bit upset about that kind of governance. Me too.
- swarnie_ 8y ago
  Having voted for Brexit i can almost certainly say I've heard of it yes.
raverbashing 8y ago
Oh you mean the EU is not an authoritarian nightmare that just imposes their will on unsuspecting member states as some are lead to believe?
- growlist 8y ago
  Ask the Greeks how it's working out for them
mrleiter 8y ago
When it comes to taxation, a central sovereign measure, every member has to agree. Although the EU itself is something sui generis (or colloqually supranational), certain areas demand unanimous votes, especially those that are inherent to a nation‘s sovereignty.
shaki-dora 8y ago
The decision-making process has mostly moved to the so-called "double majority" (half + 1 of member states, comprising 50%(?) of the population). Only some areas still require unanimous consent. And even those have historically not been insurmountable. What usually happens is a bundling of issues until you get an overall package that's net positive for everyone. What helped, historically, was a fundamental willingness to act constructively, based on the common understanding of the EU's importance for both economic growth as well as stability and peace. I think it's easy to underestimate how large the horrors of the 20th century still loom in Europe. That's why even something as controversial as the Greek crisis somehow ended in a compromise (of that singular kind that nobody is entirely happy with). Of course recent history has shown some cracks in this idealized story, what with Brexit, Italy, Hungary, and Poland all going full Trump-idiocracy, and the EU being a rather excellent proxy for any nationalistic, xenophobic, anti-semitic, or otherwise egocentric jingoistic tribalism that lingered below the surface previously. It's kind of ironic that so many Europeans enthusiastically agree how much they hate each other. Agreeing as in: they have actual pan-european conferences and working groups where they apparently join in complaining about "them" subjugating "us", without ever realizing that Italy's "them" is Germany's "us", and vice versa. Anyway: exciting times!
- logifail 8y ago
  >> What usually happens is a bundling of issues until you get an overall package that's net positive for everyone. That sounds too good to be true, can you give examples?
  - shaki-dora 8y ago
    It's just basic horse-trading. A somewhat extreme yet very basic example would "all of the law" (for some specific jurisdiction). Assuming this isn't North Korea, you will probably find an overwhelming majority considering the status quo to be better than completely lawless anarchy, even though every single individual can probably point at some individual law that they would rather abolish. International trade agreements make good examples: People often decry their incredible size, with thousands of pages and topics ranging from the legal system to GMO to copyright to cheese. Yet the size is the natural result of requiring the package to contain every signing country's pet issues. If Canada is mildly opposed to adopting US standards for turn signal frequency, just add a provision defining minute details for maple syrup classification and they'll be happy again. And on to Japan... etc. Another example from US law would be the "sequester" that put caps on both military as well as civilian spending. If you want something broader, it's how the budget process used to work, and to some extend still does. Yes, these examples from the US require only majorities (or 60-vote supermajorites in the Senate), not unanimity. But the mechanism is identical. That mechanism is, by the way, why there have been calls to once again allow "pork", i. e. specific grants of money to projects in individual congressional districts. While those payments had an incredibly bad reputation as being wasteful and borderline corrupt, they allowed for "bundles" of legislation to be tailor-made to get exactly the quorum required. Money happens to be perfect in that context as it is in others: it's fungible, meaning you don't have to start researching each districts' current needs when you want to make an offer. It's divisible, allowing the sum to be just right to get the vote without "overpaying" as often happens if you only have the crude instrument of actual policy. And there's one advantage of money that's unique to this use: Nobody actually cares that much about spending. While yes, overall spending levels are somewhat significant, giving some 12-term Republican from East Nowhere, MI a million $ for whatever idiotic pet project they care about carries far less of a risk of losing you support on the other side of the spectrum as implementing their favorite policy (slightly exaggerated: vegan-only school lunches; or required heterosexual target practice in preschool) would.

ainiriand 8y ago

Can you elaborate? What kind of progress?

swarnie_ 8y ago
In this case its a tax on US technology companies.

pfortuny 8y ago

Ever heard of Brexit? Some people are a bit upset about that kind of governance. Me too.

swarnie_ 8y ago
Having voted for Brexit i can almost certainly say I've heard of it yes.

raverbashing 8y ago

Oh you mean the EU is not an authoritarian nightmare that just imposes their will on unsuspecting member states as some are lead to believe?

growlist 8y ago
Ask the Greeks how it's working out for them

mrleiter 8y ago

When it comes to taxation, a central sovereign measure, every member has to agree. Although the EU itself is something sui generis (or colloqually supranational), certain areas demand unanimous votes, especially those that are inherent to a nation‘s sovereignty.

shaki-dora 8y ago

The decision-making process has mostly moved to the so-called "double majority" (half + 1 of member states, comprising 50%(?) of the population). Only some areas still require unanimous consent. And even those have historically not been insurmountable. What usually happens is a bundling of issues until you get an overall package that's net positive for everyone. What helped, historically, was a fundamental willingness to act constructively, based on the common understanding of the EU's importance for both economic growth as well as stability and peace. I think it's easy to underestimate how large the horrors of the 20th century still loom in Europe. That's why even something as controversial as the Greek crisis somehow ended in a compromise (of that singular kind that nobody is entirely happy with). Of course recent history has shown some cracks in this idealized story, what with Brexit, Italy, Hungary, and Poland all going full Trump-idiocracy, and the EU being a rather excellent proxy for any nationalistic, xenophobic, anti-semitic, or otherwise egocentric jingoistic tribalism that lingered below the surface previously. It's kind of ironic that so many Europeans enthusiastically agree how much they hate each other. Agreeing as in: they have actual pan-european conferences and working groups where they apparently join in complaining about "them" subjugating "us", without ever realizing that Italy's "them" is Germany's "us", and vice versa. Anyway: exciting times!

logifail 8y ago
>> What usually happens is a bundling of issues until you get an overall package that's net positive for everyone. That sounds too good to be true, can you give examples?
- shaki-dora 8y ago
  It's just basic horse-trading. A somewhat extreme yet very basic example would "all of the law" (for some specific jurisdiction). Assuming this isn't North Korea, you will probably find an overwhelming majority considering the status quo to be better than completely lawless anarchy, even though every single individual can probably point at some individual law that they would rather abolish. International trade agreements make good examples: People often decry their incredible size, with thousands of pages and topics ranging from the legal system to GMO to copyright to cheese. Yet the size is the natural result of requiring the package to contain every signing country's pet issues. If Canada is mildly opposed to adopting US standards for turn signal frequency, just add a provision defining minute details for maple syrup classification and they'll be happy again. And on to Japan... etc. Another example from US law would be the "sequester" that put caps on both military as well as civilian spending. If you want something broader, it's how the budget process used to work, and to some extend still does. Yes, these examples from the US require only majorities (or 60-vote supermajorites in the Senate), not unanimity. But the mechanism is identical. That mechanism is, by the way, why there have been calls to once again allow "pork", i. e. specific grants of money to projects in individual congressional districts. While those payments had an incredibly bad reputation as being wasteful and borderline corrupt, they allowed for "bundles" of legislation to be tailor-made to get exactly the quorum required. Money happens to be perfect in that context as it is in others: it's fungible, meaning you don't have to start researching each districts' current needs when you want to make an offer. It's divisible, allowing the sum to be just right to get the vote without "overpaying" as often happens if you only have the crude instrument of actual policy. And there's one advantage of money that's unique to this use: Nobody actually cares that much about spending. While yes, overall spending levels are somewhat significant, giving some 12-term Republican from East Nowhere, MI a million $ for whatever idiotic pet project they care about carries far less of a risk of losing you support on the other side of the spectrum as implementing their favorite policy (slightly exaggerated: vegan-only school lunches; or required heterosexual target practice in preschool) would.