4 ms·

The EU has a lot of carrot for countries like Poland or Lithuania. Even longer term members such as Belgium, etc, that don't have such history with the Soviets

by pcrh 5y ago

The EU has a lot of carrot for countries like Poland or Lithuania. Even longer term members such as Belgium, etc, that don't have such history with the Soviets know they are better off being in the EU than splintered.

jollybean 5y ago
What is the 'carrot' for Spain, France, Italy that goes beyond what the EEC provided? Why would a 'really great trade agreement' not provide 'most, if not all of the carrot' with respect to economic upsides? Does the EU political apparatus an ECJ, i.e. beyond comprehensive trade agreements, provide carrots?
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  Well, one carrot for Spain was the assistance it received during the last financial crisis[0], and France probably likes being able to project its influence onto neighbouring countries through its position in the EU. Less reductively, I think that a major benefit of a political union is that it gives some degree of democratic legitimacy to decisions made about difficult region-wide issues like trade policy, consumer protection, immigration, the environment, and anti-trust law, to name but a few. All of those matters could in theory be settled via multi-lateral treaties, but they would probably be hard to reach flexible compromises over while still being overseen by representatives voted for by the public with a mandate for deciding on those supranational issues. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_debt_crisis#Spain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_debt_crisis#Spain
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Those are not very good carrots. Why bother with barely a vaneer of legitimacy at the EU level which has a democratic deficit? Why not have an EEC that casts flexible treaties over immigration, environment and anti-trust on as as-needed basis, with actual elected represented 'regular' national MPs dedicated to those issues at the European level? i.e. Boris would have 5 Cabinet Ministers for major European level issues and a European ministry? That way have the benefits of some degree of coherence without the sovereignty problem.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      So your solution to the "democratic deficit" of the EU is to give Boris more power? He already has, in practice, all the power of the unelected head of state at his disposal, plus the unelected House of Lords, based on a voting system which put him into power with 44% of the popular vote.
      - jollybean 5y ago
        "He already has, in practice, all the power of the unelected head of state" B.J. is an Elected Head of state. He won his mandate in a very clear and unambiguous election, the primary issues of which concerned not only on his leadership and tenure, but also the pivotal issue of Brexit. The election had very high participation rate, and the UK public was very well informed with respect to the stakes involved. B.J. doesn't have absolute power and both his party and opponent MPs can challenge his authority. The EU meanwhile, has barely any democratic legitimacy. The President of the Commission and members of the Cabinet - those that enact legislation - are unelected. Ursula Von Der Leyen did not stand for election. She was plucked from obscurity by Macron and Merkel after the EU elections, in a closed, backroom deal in which voters had no effective influence. The protocols by which she was chosen are not codified, in fact, it's only recently agreed to (Treaty of Lisbon) elected MEPs should even have to be consulted. Von Der Leyen was not introduced to the public before the election, she didn't go on a media circuit so as to be introduced to the public of various countries where people could learn about her or her platform. There were no editorials, there was no media vetting, there were no interviews, there was no pragmatic by which voters could even learn about their would be leader. She was imposed in EU voters, probably less than 2% of whom had even heard of her. EU elections have very low rates of participation, EU voters have very low awareness of any of the material issues, MEPs have very little ability to influence legislation and very limited ability to censure leaders. So yes, Boris Johnson (and Macron, and Merkel) have considerably more legitimacy than any members of the EU apparatus, and that might very well serve as a better basis for European citizens to influence the establishment of rules or laws via treaties as opposed to the very indirect democratic mechanisms of the EU.
        5y ago

by pcrh 5y ago

jollybean 5y ago

What is the 'carrot' for Spain, France, Italy that goes beyond what the EEC provided? Why would a 'really great trade agreement' not provide 'most, if not all of the carrot' with respect to economic upsides? Does the EU political apparatus an ECJ, i.e. beyond comprehensive trade agreements, provide carrots?

dane-pgp 5y ago
Well, one carrot for Spain was the assistance it received during the last financial crisis[0], and France probably likes being able to project its influence onto neighbouring countries through its position in the EU. Less reductively, I think that a major benefit of a political union is that it gives some degree of democratic legitimacy to decisions made about difficult region-wide issues like trade policy, consumer protection, immigration, the environment, and anti-trust law, to name but a few. All of those matters could in theory be settled via multi-lateral treaties, but they would probably be hard to reach flexible compromises over while still being overseen by representatives voted for by the public with a mandate for deciding on those supranational issues. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_debt_crisis#Spain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_debt_crisis#Spain
- jollybean 5y ago
  Those are not very good carrots. Why bother with barely a vaneer of legitimacy at the EU level which has a democratic deficit? Why not have an EEC that casts flexible treaties over immigration, environment and anti-trust on as as-needed basis, with actual elected represented 'regular' national MPs dedicated to those issues at the European level? i.e. Boris would have 5 Cabinet Ministers for major European level issues and a European ministry? That way have the benefits of some degree of coherence without the sovereignty problem.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    So your solution to the "democratic deficit" of the EU is to give Boris more power? He already has, in practice, all the power of the unelected head of state at his disposal, plus the unelected House of Lords, based on a voting system which put him into power with 44% of the popular vote.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      "He already has, in practice, all the power of the unelected head of state" B.J. is an Elected Head of state. He won his mandate in a very clear and unambiguous election, the primary issues of which concerned not only on his leadership and tenure, but also the pivotal issue of Brexit. The election had very high participation rate, and the UK public was very well informed with respect to the stakes involved. B.J. doesn't have absolute power and both his party and opponent MPs can challenge his authority. The EU meanwhile, has barely any democratic legitimacy. The President of the Commission and members of the Cabinet - those that enact legislation - are unelected. Ursula Von Der Leyen did not stand for election. She was plucked from obscurity by Macron and Merkel after the EU elections, in a closed, backroom deal in which voters had no effective influence. The protocols by which she was chosen are not codified, in fact, it's only recently agreed to (Treaty of Lisbon) elected MEPs should even have to be consulted. Von Der Leyen was not introduced to the public before the election, she didn't go on a media circuit so as to be introduced to the public of various countries where people could learn about her or her platform. There were no editorials, there was no media vetting, there were no interviews, there was no pragmatic by which voters could even learn about their would be leader. She was imposed in EU voters, probably less than 2% of whom had even heard of her. EU elections have very low rates of participation, EU voters have very low awareness of any of the material issues, MEPs have very little ability to influence legislation and very limited ability to censure leaders. So yes, Boris Johnson (and Macron, and Merkel) have considerably more legitimacy than any members of the EU apparatus, and that might very well serve as a better basis for European citizens to influence the establishment of rules or laws via treaties as opposed to the very indirect democratic mechanisms of the EU.
      - 5y ago