11 ms·

The issue I see with the EU, is that it's essentially centralizing all the "countries" into "states". Where by, each of the states will simply answer to the two

The issue I see with the EU, is that it's essentially centralizing all the "countries" into "states". Where by, each of the states will simply answer to the two countries with the most power. Namely Germany, followed by France. Personally, I think it's sad. It's as if we're watching the destruction of all the national identities. Only to be centralized by powers who are only interested in their own national identity. This is similar to the struggle the U.S. faced at the start. You cannot have a centralized government making laws without invasively deciding everything. A federation of the EU made sense. Shared currency, shared military, etc. But by trying to manage the economy (which copyright is an extension of), they are essentially going down the path of ever increasing centralization. With that, countries like the U.K., who have a strong national identity, can and should leave - if they want to be an independent nation.

Faelian 8y ago
Well, I would argue that not having a centralised fiscality is the biggest EU problem at the moment. Every country try to lower the tax for big companies to attract them, and now we have a situation where the GAFAM pay ridiculous taxes, and the citizen pay a bigger share of the pie.
raverbashing 8y ago
> It's as if we're watching the destruction of all the national identities. Apart from all its faults and goals, if there's one thing the EU (the institution) is less likely to touch is national identities (Merkel "wir shaffen das" nonetheless), but usually protects it, especially in the form of national products Oh and the "strong national identity" of the UK comes across often more as a lack of willing to modernize and adapt as just wanting to keep a national identity.
pslam 8y ago
You win at right wing talking-points bingo. The whole point of the EU is that Europe is better when it's together. There were multiple wars, involving the death of many millions, and that's just the last hundred years. Independence is just dressed up nationalism, and all the ugly facets it is made of.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > Independence is just dressed up nationalism, and all the ugly facets it is made of. This really needs to be phrased better, because it's the argument for technocratic global soft dictatorship.
- dingaling 8y ago
  > There were multiple wars, involving the death of many millions, and that's just the last hundred years. Of which the EU has existed for just 27 years. For the 70 years of its existence NATO has been a strong bond and influence, with the exception of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus it has prevented violent conflict between its members. And it didn't require integration of forces; it published standards for commonality and each member nation determined the nature of its own implementation and declared its contribution to collective defence.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    The road to the EU began in 1951, a mere 6 years after ww2 ended. Integration has increased more and more since then.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Mirioron 8y ago
  >Independence is just dressed up nationalism, and all the ugly facets it is made of. I'm not sure if this is your intention, but this one line screams authoritarianism to me.
- nec4b 8y ago
  Pax Americana (NATO) is what is keeping Europe peaceful at the moment and not the EU. Europe had long periods of peace as well long periods of wars throughout its history.
tnolet 8y ago
> Personally, I think it's sad. It's as if we're watching the destruction of all the national identities. Ha, that gave me a good chuckle. When in Europe, I would be happy to take you of a tour and show you how vastly different people live, behave and think just in the patch of land between France, The Netherlands and Germany. (I am Dutch, live in Germany and my folks live in France, so I claim at least some experience). You will quickly see national identities are well and alive, regardless of EU centralization.
avar 8y ago
This is not at all what's happening. Structurally, those big countries can easily get outvoted, and to change EU law it needs to be proposed by the commission, which is voted in by the council, where all member states have an equal vote. It then needs to be passed by the parliament, where votes are proportional to population. There Germany and France have the most members, but just over 1/5 of the overall membership. What actually happens is that all the other states also want these policies, and then when their electorate doesn't like it they say "the big bad EU made us do it!". This is in no small part the cause for Brexit.
- sc11 8y ago
  > It then needs to be passed by the parliament, where votes are proportional to population. Votes in the parliament aren't directly proportional to population in order to prevent large countries from dominating votes. Germany has 1 MEP per ~855k citizens, France ~870k while smaller countries like Belgium or Ireland have 1 MEP per 400-500k citizens.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    That's pretty much the same in any country. In the UK constituencies go from 22k to 110k. In the U.S. congressional districts range from 500k to 1 million.
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  The problem I have is that within these big countries, the policy doesn't have a majority. For me, that questions the democratic legitimacy for the european legislative process. Because it can evidently be abused to push through "unpopular" laws that only serve special interests.
  - avar 8y ago
    A majority of what? A poll among the general population? support of local parliamentarians in those countries? In either case, that doesn't per-se call the democratic legitimacy into question. The entire point of a representative democracy is that you elect competent people to make decisions for you, which by definition means that a lot of the time they'll decide to do X even though Y would be the outcome if the issue were to be put to a popular vote.
DubiousPusher 8y ago
The pedestal contemporary people put national identity on is just that, contemporary. National identities didn't arise naturally. Many of them were very thoughtfully and intentionally invented. For most of human history, the idea that people over a geography the size of Engalnd would see themselves as one people would've been ridiculous. It's really only in the last 200-400 years that people have accepted the nation as their identifying place. Previously people's place identity came the much smaller geography of their county, kingdom, principality or hamlet. Joining these smaller identities into larger national identities was a big win that came with many benefits. Of course it meant that these places had to give up some autonomy. Just as there are many benefits of nations giving up some autonomy to act collectively in a regional power structure. It's only our contemporary bias that tells us that the subordination of the political will of the hamlet to the nation is good and that the subordination of the national will to a continental or regional will is bad.
- TadaScientist 8y ago
  Oh really? National identities didn't arise naturally? Ask the Greeks and the Italians
  - grokys 8y ago
    Italy was unified in 1871, in part by force. And many parts of Italy still resent that and consider themselves Sicilian, Napolitan etc rather than "Italian". I can't speak for Greece, but Italy is a really BAD example of a "naturally arisen" national identity. In fact the (now second party) Northern League's sole purpose until Matteo Salvini was to split Northen Italy from the south.
    - luckydata 8y ago
      Can confirm some of this is true, but it would be overstating the division. It's a LONG conversation that I would be happy to have with a couple beers, but as a mixed Piemontese-Sicilian person living in the US I have a little more perspective on that than the average person :)
zapnuk 8y ago
> The issue I see with the EU, is that it's essentially centralizing all the "countries" into "states". Where by, each of the states will simply answer to the two countries with the most power. Namely Germany, followed by France. The commission consists of one commissioner per country. The parlement has (currenlty) 705 seats. Germany is represented by 96, and france by 79 seats. On paper it is entirely possible for smaller countries to stick together and work against the interests of germany and/or france. If they don't I assume that it's because they get an economic benefit as a compansation in exchange. I don't agree with your take on national identies at all. I don't think national identities have changed (much) in the last 20 years and I doubt they will in the near future. If they do won't be due to too much EU, it will be because the EU institutions/mechanics are too weak+slow and cannot address problems at hand. Similar to the rather slow reaction to the migrant crises. However, this won't be an EU specific problem. We see similar problems in the UK and US (and other EU countries) where political parties are too divided that they are seemingly unable to work together and solve (pressing) problems.
- isostatic 8y ago
  > The commission consists of one commissioner per country However they don't work for the country. I guess the closest analogy for the U.S. would be the white house - but where the president is elected by the electoral college (in the E.U it's by the council, although that's just a rubber stamp based on the party who gets the highest number of votes in the equivelent of House vote) However instead of the president choosing heads of department himself, he gets to choose from 28 people sent from each countries. The "U.S. Senate" equivalent is the council, where every country gets 1 vote, regardless of size. To get things passed through the Council, a double majority needs to happen - both a number (55% of countries I think) and a population (countries representing 65% of the population). This ensures that small countries can't gang up on large ones, and vice versa. Imagine the U.S. senate, where you need 55 votes to pass, and that can't just be from states like Wyoming and Vermont, but would have to include at least a couple of states like California or Florida. Then to pass into law, it also has to pass through the MEPs, who represent the voters of the EU (rather than the governments), in a roughly proportional manner.
lawn 8y ago
As a Swede this is exactly why I'm against the EU. Free trade is great, I get that, but I really don't like the centralization and getting less and less influence. I don't want Germany and France to shove idiotic internet laws down my throat. In some way it's also why I'm rooting for U.K. to leave the EU and for it to work out.
- beefield 8y ago
  Just wondering, what exactly makes you think the laws shoved to your throat by Sweden would on average be any less idiotic? And why would just Sweden be the right size of entity that optimizes the idiocy of the laws, why independent Skåne would not be shoving less idiotic laws to your throat?
  - lawn 8y ago
    I'm under the illusion it's easier to influence a Swedish politician than it is to influence an order of magnitude more foreign politicians, to get the same proportion of influence. The problem will always be there of course. I'm not saying Sweden is the optimal size, I just find it better than the EU alternative. If you go to the extreme you can get too small as well. For example a society with a couple of thousand people is too small to form what's essentially a country. There is no clear cut answer.
    - isostatic 8y ago
      > I'm under the illusion I think that's brexit all over, illusion rather than substance. > it's easier to influence a Swedish politician than it is to influence an order of magnitude more foreign politicians, to get the same proportion of influence. Yes, and that's bad. A big benefit of the EU is it's harder to manipulate -- there's a lot more people to control -- at least 16 independent heads of governments and nearly 400 MEPs. Far easier to lean on a single struggling PM and promise your endorsement in return for dinner. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/05/rupert-murdoch-access-to-downing-street-theresa-may-david-cameron https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/05/rupert-murdoch... And the EU's power is limited, by national vetos, and national laws, and the fundamental material scope of eu law. How broad or narrow that scope is of course something to be debated, but the limits are there. Copyright is clearly is one of those things that needs to be tackled at a level of government higher than the local town council, especially if you have an open market. Imagine a world where a movie made in LA wasn't protected by copyright in New York, let alone Toronto, Paris, or Singapore. The EU is far more democratic than say the ISDS treaties, WTO and the web of complex interlocking treaties between countries. > If you go to the extreme you can get too small as well. For example a society with a couple of thousand people is too small to form what's essentially a country. There is no clear cut answer. Decisions should be taken at as low a level as makes sense. Defense can't be done at a city level, or even a national level for most countries, so these decisions make sense to move to larger areas. How far we're willing to move is an ever changing view, but the principal stands.
decebalus1 8y ago
> With that, countries like the U.K., who have a strong national identity, can and should leave - if they want to be an independent nation. I want what you're smoking. What are you talking about? Do the Scots identify with the Welsh or the Irish? The UK, as all countries is an artificial construct which did not 'organically' came to existence based on the 'national' awakening of Its population.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Quite, as a UK citizen I struggle to see anything in common with 52% of my fellow citizens
  - avar 8y ago
    Assuming you mean because of the Brexit vote, then you either mean 38% or 66%. Turnout was only 72%. So if you've got a beef with Brexit voters that's 52*0.72 =~ 38%, or maybe you also resent those who didn't bother to vote at all, which combined with Brexit voters raises it to around 66%. That's before attempting to adjust for voters who've died since the vote, and those voting age citizens who couldn't legally vote in 2016.
mtgx 8y ago
I don't know what you mean by "centralized economy" but centralized markets have their (huge) benefits. Think about how much easier it is to launch a service within all the United States of America at once compared to launching it in all of the countries in the European Union. The language barrier is a huge obstacle, no doubt, but it's far from the only one. Another way to look at "centralization" is from the point of view of "standardization" for markets and platforms, and that has huge benefits for startups and big companies alike.
- Kurtz79 8y ago
  Yes. A small example from my very small world (railway). Materials to be used on rolling stock (trains) must comply with Fire/Smoke/Toxicity standards. A few years ago these standards were only at national level, there is a French standard, a German one, etc... It was hell to demonstrate that your German-made widget could be used in a train meant to operate in UK. In the last few years this has been harmonized in a EU-level standard, which makes much simpler and cheaper for manufacturers to market their products across the Union and for customers to integrate them in their systems.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  Well, I'm looking at it, and considering how the EU basically has almost no major tech companies, I would say that the EU is not really serving its purpose. Even right now different parts of the EU are region locked into different services. Eg sometimes the Baltic states are clumped in with CIS. Add on the many additional regulations and the EU seems to be a worse place to launch a service than in most developed places in the world.
Spearchucker 8y ago
Monetary policy without a fiscal policy to give it teeth is why Greece was able to use Germany's good credit rating to get a loan they couldn't repay. And yes I believe the EU is becoming more like a federation. How do you think it isn't? How is the central EU government deciding everything? The diesel laws in German cities aren't an EU law. France and Germany can't pass EU laws on their own. My last point is based on belief. I cannot fathom why leavers in the UK believe the UK can be stronger alone. Or that the economy can grow without migrant workers and immigrants. Two are ALWAYS going to be stronger than one. And the EU has what, 27 member states (excluding the UK)?
beefield 8y ago
> Personally, I think it's sad. It's as if we're watching the destruction of all the national identities. I am perfectly willing to accept that you think this is sad. Just like I am willing to accept that some people like blue color over red. But have you ever thought why you think that is sad? In some real, rational terms?
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
> countries like the U.K., who have a strong national identity I laughed, good one. You're aware of Scotland almost voting for independence, and Northern Ireland being demographically only a matter of time until independence (reunification with Ireland)? Or that both of those places voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU? Gibraltar voted 99% remain. So which bit of the UK wants to be an independent nation? There's about a dozen permutations you can arrive at. If Scotland and / or Northern Ireland goes, expect independence for Yorkshire and Cornwall, maybe Northumbria campaigns. I think just about the only thing that unites the UK at present is the dire quality of this generation of Westminster politicians. Perhaps also embarrassment of being British and associated with them.
- mstade 8y ago
  As a non-brit having lived in London for a few years my (mostly but not entirely tounge in cheek) take on it is that it seems pretty much all parts of England loathes every other part of England, to variying degrees; while all other parts of the kingdom also dislikes most of England, to varying degrees. The only thing that seems to unite the British, in my mind, is non-londoner's (and some londoner's too!) dislike for London! (Particularly Westminster, as you mention.) I suppose they all unite also when England performs well in big soccer games. If they don't do well however...
  - RaceWon 8y ago
    I believe they (Formula One fans) also claim Lewis as one of their own, as they certainly did with Mansell.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    You seem to be figuring us out quite well. Most of the inter regional loathing is a sort of benign, almost friendly loathing, until you look south or north(depending on starting point)... North-south divide is a little more real, if you see what I mean. Well, England unites for soccer, Scotland, with their own footie team, hopes for England to go out on penalties, as always. :) For things where there's a British rather than English team they might.
gammateam 8y ago
The UK was the only one vetoing a real EU military So with them gone, expect it Just going to have to accept that Germany is better at this game
rtkwe 8y ago
> But by trying to manage the economy (which copyright is an extension of), they are essentially going down the path of ever increasing centralization. That management is core to one of the major benefits of the EU though the free movement of goods. By necessity to have that completely free movement goods have to be produced, sold and consumed under the same set of laws. Otherwise a product produced legally in one country could be illegal in another which would start to inch back towards border checks over time as national laws diverged.
petre 8y ago
I do not think the EU surpresses national identity but I have a problem with how the decisional process is influenced by special interests in two countries.
anoncake 8y ago
> The issue I see with the EU, is that it's essentially centralizing all the "countries" into "states". > It's as if we're watching the destruction of all the national identities. You don't live in a federation, do you?

Faelian 8y ago

Well, I would argue that not having a centralised fiscality is the biggest EU problem at the moment. Every country try to lower the tax for big companies to attract them, and now we have a situation where the GAFAM pay ridiculous taxes, and the citizen pay a bigger share of the pie.

raverbashing 8y ago

> It's as if we're watching the destruction of all the national identities. Apart from all its faults and goals, if there's one thing the EU (the institution) is less likely to touch is national identities (Merkel "wir shaffen das" nonetheless), but usually protects it, especially in the form of national products Oh and the "strong national identity" of the UK comes across often more as a lack of willing to modernize and adapt as just wanting to keep a national identity.

pslam 8y ago

You win at right wing talking-points bingo. The whole point of the EU is that Europe is better when it's together. There were multiple wars, involving the death of many millions, and that's just the last hundred years. Independence is just dressed up nationalism, and all the ugly facets it is made of.

pjc50 8y ago
> Independence is just dressed up nationalism, and all the ugly facets it is made of. This really needs to be phrased better, because it's the argument for technocratic global soft dictatorship.
dingaling 8y ago
> There were multiple wars, involving the death of many millions, and that's just the last hundred years. Of which the EU has existed for just 27 years. For the 70 years of its existence NATO has been a strong bond and influence, with the exception of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus it has prevented violent conflict between its members. And it didn't require integration of forces; it published standards for commonality and each member nation determined the nature of its own implementation and declared its contribution to collective defence.
- isostatic 8y ago
  The road to the EU began in 1951, a mere 6 years after ww2 ended. Integration has increased more and more since then.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Mirioron 8y ago
>Independence is just dressed up nationalism, and all the ugly facets it is made of. I'm not sure if this is your intention, but this one line screams authoritarianism to me.
nec4b 8y ago
Pax Americana (NATO) is what is keeping Europe peaceful at the moment and not the EU. Europe had long periods of peace as well long periods of wars throughout its history.

tnolet 8y ago

> Personally, I think it's sad. It's as if we're watching the destruction of all the national identities. Ha, that gave me a good chuckle. When in Europe, I would be happy to take you of a tour and show you how vastly different people live, behave and think just in the patch of land between France, The Netherlands and Germany. (I am Dutch, live in Germany and my folks live in France, so I claim at least some experience). You will quickly see national identities are well and alive, regardless of EU centralization.

avar 8y ago

This is not at all what's happening. Structurally, those big countries can easily get outvoted, and to change EU law it needs to be proposed by the commission, which is voted in by the council, where all member states have an equal vote. It then needs to be passed by the parliament, where votes are proportional to population. There Germany and France have the most members, but just over 1/5 of the overall membership. What actually happens is that all the other states also want these policies, and then when their electorate doesn't like it they say "the big bad EU made us do it!". This is in no small part the cause for Brexit.

sc11 8y ago
> It then needs to be passed by the parliament, where votes are proportional to population. Votes in the parliament aren't directly proportional to population in order to prevent large countries from dominating votes. Germany has 1 MEP per ~855k citizens, France ~870k while smaller countries like Belgium or Ireland have 1 MEP per 400-500k citizens.
- isostatic 8y ago
  That's pretty much the same in any country. In the UK constituencies go from 22k to 110k. In the U.S. congressional districts range from 500k to 1 million.
raxxorrax 8y ago
The problem I have is that within these big countries, the policy doesn't have a majority. For me, that questions the democratic legitimacy for the european legislative process. Because it can evidently be abused to push through "unpopular" laws that only serve special interests.
- avar 8y ago
  A majority of what? A poll among the general population? support of local parliamentarians in those countries? In either case, that doesn't per-se call the democratic legitimacy into question. The entire point of a representative democracy is that you elect competent people to make decisions for you, which by definition means that a lot of the time they'll decide to do X even though Y would be the outcome if the issue were to be put to a popular vote.

DubiousPusher 8y ago

The pedestal contemporary people put national identity on is just that, contemporary. National identities didn't arise naturally. Many of them were very thoughtfully and intentionally invented. For most of human history, the idea that people over a geography the size of Engalnd would see themselves as one people would've been ridiculous. It's really only in the last 200-400 years that people have accepted the nation as their identifying place. Previously people's place identity came the much smaller geography of their county, kingdom, principality or hamlet. Joining these smaller identities into larger national identities was a big win that came with many benefits. Of course it meant that these places had to give up some autonomy. Just as there are many benefits of nations giving up some autonomy to act collectively in a regional power structure. It's only our contemporary bias that tells us that the subordination of the political will of the hamlet to the nation is good and that the subordination of the national will to a continental or regional will is bad.

TadaScientist 8y ago
Oh really? National identities didn't arise naturally? Ask the Greeks and the Italians
- grokys 8y ago
  Italy was unified in 1871, in part by force. And many parts of Italy still resent that and consider themselves Sicilian, Napolitan etc rather than "Italian". I can't speak for Greece, but Italy is a really BAD example of a "naturally arisen" national identity. In fact the (now second party) Northern League's sole purpose until Matteo Salvini was to split Northen Italy from the south.
  - luckydata 8y ago
    Can confirm some of this is true, but it would be overstating the division. It's a LONG conversation that I would be happy to have with a couple beers, but as a mixed Piemontese-Sicilian person living in the US I have a little more perspective on that than the average person :)

zapnuk 8y ago

> The issue I see with the EU, is that it's essentially centralizing all the "countries" into "states". Where by, each of the states will simply answer to the two countries with the most power. Namely Germany, followed by France. The commission consists of one commissioner per country. The parlement has (currenlty) 705 seats. Germany is represented by 96, and france by 79 seats. On paper it is entirely possible for smaller countries to stick together and work against the interests of germany and/or france. If they don't I assume that it's because they get an economic benefit as a compansation in exchange. I don't agree with your take on national identies at all. I don't think national identities have changed (much) in the last 20 years and I doubt they will in the near future. If they do won't be due to too much EU, it will be because the EU institutions/mechanics are too weak+slow and cannot address problems at hand. Similar to the rather slow reaction to the migrant crises. However, this won't be an EU specific problem. We see similar problems in the UK and US (and other EU countries) where political parties are too divided that they are seemingly unable to work together and solve (pressing) problems.

isostatic 8y ago
> The commission consists of one commissioner per country However they don't work for the country. I guess the closest analogy for the U.S. would be the white house - but where the president is elected by the electoral college (in the E.U it's by the council, although that's just a rubber stamp based on the party who gets the highest number of votes in the equivelent of House vote) However instead of the president choosing heads of department himself, he gets to choose from 28 people sent from each countries. The "U.S. Senate" equivalent is the council, where every country gets 1 vote, regardless of size. To get things passed through the Council, a double majority needs to happen - both a number (55% of countries I think) and a population (countries representing 65% of the population). This ensures that small countries can't gang up on large ones, and vice versa. Imagine the U.S. senate, where you need 55 votes to pass, and that can't just be from states like Wyoming and Vermont, but would have to include at least a couple of states like California or Florida. Then to pass into law, it also has to pass through the MEPs, who represent the voters of the EU (rather than the governments), in a roughly proportional manner.

lawn 8y ago

As a Swede this is exactly why I'm against the EU. Free trade is great, I get that, but I really don't like the centralization and getting less and less influence. I don't want Germany and France to shove idiotic internet laws down my throat. In some way it's also why I'm rooting for U.K. to leave the EU and for it to work out.

beefield 8y ago
Just wondering, what exactly makes you think the laws shoved to your throat by Sweden would on average be any less idiotic? And why would just Sweden be the right size of entity that optimizes the idiocy of the laws, why independent Skåne would not be shoving less idiotic laws to your throat?
- lawn 8y ago
  I'm under the illusion it's easier to influence a Swedish politician than it is to influence an order of magnitude more foreign politicians, to get the same proportion of influence. The problem will always be there of course. I'm not saying Sweden is the optimal size, I just find it better than the EU alternative. If you go to the extreme you can get too small as well. For example a society with a couple of thousand people is too small to form what's essentially a country. There is no clear cut answer.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    > I'm under the illusion I think that's brexit all over, illusion rather than substance. > it's easier to influence a Swedish politician than it is to influence an order of magnitude more foreign politicians, to get the same proportion of influence. Yes, and that's bad. A big benefit of the EU is it's harder to manipulate -- there's a lot more people to control -- at least 16 independent heads of governments and nearly 400 MEPs. Far easier to lean on a single struggling PM and promise your endorsement in return for dinner. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/05/rupert-murdoch-access-to-downing-street-theresa-may-david-cameron https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/05/rupert-murdoch... And the EU's power is limited, by national vetos, and national laws, and the fundamental material scope of eu law. How broad or narrow that scope is of course something to be debated, but the limits are there. Copyright is clearly is one of those things that needs to be tackled at a level of government higher than the local town council, especially if you have an open market. Imagine a world where a movie made in LA wasn't protected by copyright in New York, let alone Toronto, Paris, or Singapore. The EU is far more democratic than say the ISDS treaties, WTO and the web of complex interlocking treaties between countries. > If you go to the extreme you can get too small as well. For example a society with a couple of thousand people is too small to form what's essentially a country. There is no clear cut answer. Decisions should be taken at as low a level as makes sense. Defense can't be done at a city level, or even a national level for most countries, so these decisions make sense to move to larger areas. How far we're willing to move is an ever changing view, but the principal stands.

decebalus1 8y ago

> With that, countries like the U.K., who have a strong national identity, can and should leave - if they want to be an independent nation. I want what you're smoking. What are you talking about? Do the Scots identify with the Welsh or the Irish? The UK, as all countries is an artificial construct which did not 'organically' came to existence based on the 'national' awakening of Its population.

isostatic 8y ago
Quite, as a UK citizen I struggle to see anything in common with 52% of my fellow citizens
- avar 8y ago
  Assuming you mean because of the Brexit vote, then you either mean 38% or 66%. Turnout was only 72%. So if you've got a beef with Brexit voters that's 52*0.72 =~ 38%, or maybe you also resent those who didn't bother to vote at all, which combined with Brexit voters raises it to around 66%. That's before attempting to adjust for voters who've died since the vote, and those voting age citizens who couldn't legally vote in 2016.

mtgx 8y ago

I don't know what you mean by "centralized economy" but centralized markets have their (huge) benefits. Think about how much easier it is to launch a service within all the United States of America at once compared to launching it in all of the countries in the European Union. The language barrier is a huge obstacle, no doubt, but it's far from the only one. Another way to look at "centralization" is from the point of view of "standardization" for markets and platforms, and that has huge benefits for startups and big companies alike.

Kurtz79 8y ago
Yes. A small example from my very small world (railway). Materials to be used on rolling stock (trains) must comply with Fire/Smoke/Toxicity standards. A few years ago these standards were only at national level, there is a French standard, a German one, etc... It was hell to demonstrate that your German-made widget could be used in a train meant to operate in UK. In the last few years this has been harmonized in a EU-level standard, which makes much simpler and cheaper for manufacturers to market their products across the Union and for customers to integrate them in their systems.
Mirioron 8y ago
Well, I'm looking at it, and considering how the EU basically has almost no major tech companies, I would say that the EU is not really serving its purpose. Even right now different parts of the EU are region locked into different services. Eg sometimes the Baltic states are clumped in with CIS. Add on the many additional regulations and the EU seems to be a worse place to launch a service than in most developed places in the world.

Spearchucker 8y ago

Monetary policy without a fiscal policy to give it teeth is why Greece was able to use Germany's good credit rating to get a loan they couldn't repay. And yes I believe the EU is becoming more like a federation. How do you think it isn't? How is the central EU government deciding everything? The diesel laws in German cities aren't an EU law. France and Germany can't pass EU laws on their own. My last point is based on belief. I cannot fathom why leavers in the UK believe the UK can be stronger alone. Or that the economy can grow without migrant workers and immigrants. Two are ALWAYS going to be stronger than one. And the EU has what, 27 member states (excluding the UK)?

beefield 8y ago

> Personally, I think it's sad. It's as if we're watching the destruction of all the national identities. I am perfectly willing to accept that you think this is sad. Just like I am willing to accept that some people like blue color over red. But have you ever thought why you think that is sad? In some real, rational terms?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

> countries like the U.K., who have a strong national identity I laughed, good one. You're aware of Scotland almost voting for independence, and Northern Ireland being demographically only a matter of time until independence (reunification with Ireland)? Or that both of those places voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU? Gibraltar voted 99% remain. So which bit of the UK wants to be an independent nation? There's about a dozen permutations you can arrive at. If Scotland and / or Northern Ireland goes, expect independence for Yorkshire and Cornwall, maybe Northumbria campaigns. I think just about the only thing that unites the UK at present is the dire quality of this generation of Westminster politicians. Perhaps also embarrassment of being British and associated with them.

mstade 8y ago
As a non-brit having lived in London for a few years my (mostly but not entirely tounge in cheek) take on it is that it seems pretty much all parts of England loathes every other part of England, to variying degrees; while all other parts of the kingdom also dislikes most of England, to varying degrees. The only thing that seems to unite the British, in my mind, is non-londoner's (and some londoner's too!) dislike for London! (Particularly Westminster, as you mention.) I suppose they all unite also when England performs well in big soccer games. If they don't do well however...
- RaceWon 8y ago
  I believe they (Formula One fans) also claim Lewis as one of their own, as they certainly did with Mansell.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  You seem to be figuring us out quite well. Most of the inter regional loathing is a sort of benign, almost friendly loathing, until you look south or north(depending on starting point)... North-south divide is a little more real, if you see what I mean. Well, England unites for soccer, Scotland, with their own footie team, hopes for England to go out on penalties, as always. :) For things where there's a British rather than English team they might.

gammateam 8y ago

The UK was the only one vetoing a real EU military So with them gone, expect it Just going to have to accept that Germany is better at this game

rtkwe 8y ago

> But by trying to manage the economy (which copyright is an extension of), they are essentially going down the path of ever increasing centralization. That management is core to one of the major benefits of the EU though the free movement of goods. By necessity to have that completely free movement goods have to be produced, sold and consumed under the same set of laws. Otherwise a product produced legally in one country could be illegal in another which would start to inch back towards border checks over time as national laws diverged.

petre 8y ago

I do not think the EU surpresses national identity but I have a problem with how the decisional process is influenced by special interests in two countries.

anoncake 8y ago

> The issue I see with the EU, is that it's essentially centralizing all the "countries" into "states". > It's as if we're watching the destruction of all the national identities. You don't live in a federation, do you?