4 ms·

> Euro-realist It's not realism to believe the EU can't exist within or facilitate your idealised frame of reference (assuming it makes sense and is something

> Euro-realist It's not realism to believe the EU can't exist within or facilitate your idealised frame of reference (assuming it makes sense and is something people should want), it's just negativity. > I wish people would stop attributing our attitude to nationalistic resurgences. Quite frankly nationalistic resurgence is the #1 indicator for "euro realism", so this is a very reasonable stance to take.

cameronh90 5y ago
Before the whole brexit issue, even most ardent EU supporters would admit that the institution was terribly dysfunctional and would need to be reinvented to survive the next few decades. The Brexit debate seems to have polarised the whole issue into either you hate the EU and everything it stands for, or you think the EU is perfect and if it wasn't for these damn national governments then we could live in utopia. Unfortunately my country is no longer part of this project, but I hope that pro-EU people take on board some of the valid criticism of the institution and make the necessary changes. Otherwise, what happened here will inevitably happen elsewhere.
- toyg 5y ago
  > even most ardent EU supporters would admit that the institution was terribly dysfunctional That's a mischaracterization. "Most" would have accepted that there was (and is) room for improvement, but "terribly disfunctional" is an extreme term. The view that the whole institution had to be reinvented has always been a very English idea, based on the fact that some key policies (like agricultural support) benefited other countries over Britain. Most of the continent, much more pragmatically, always understood that the EU is fundamentally a set of compromises that will continue to expand. As such, it can look confusing from a distance, but once you unpack it, the compromises actually make sense (or are the only possible way towards cooperation among such different peoples). Britain benefited hugely from infrastructure support programs, for example. The EU has always been kept together more by the sheer will of European middle-classes at large, than by this or that particular set of rules. National governments are in a constant state of tension with something that they see as a new competitor for the absolute power they enjoyed for centuries. This will likely continue to be the case for a very long time.
  - arka2147483647 5y ago
    > The view that the whole institution had to be reinvented has always been a very English idea, based on the fact that some key policies (like agricultural support) benefited other countries over Britain. Most of the important discussions about EU are not held in English. I think a good part of the negative talk about EU in the English speaking sphere comes from English (Who have different needs than continental, or eastern Europe) talking with Americans (Who understand the EU even less). A lot of the moderate, compromise analyzing discussions will not be perceptible in English, because it will be held in French, German, Italian, Spanish, etc...
  - blibble 5y ago
    > Britain benefited hugely from infrastructure support programs, for example. how, exactly? compared to UK government expenditure: the funding from EU programs are a rounding error
    - toyg 5y ago
      Half of Wales and Scotland was rebuilt with European money that Westminster would not have dispensed otherwise, preferring people in decaying cities to "get on yer bike". If that's a "rounding error", think what the UK government could have achieved before and since, and never bothered to.
      - blibble 5y ago
        your statement makes the bus figure look honest by comparison the block grant to Scotland in 2019/20 was £32 billion, whereas EU RDF was €1.8 billion for 2014-2020 or put another way: the UK block grant provides Scotland more than 128x more the EU funding over the same period put another way: EU funding is 0.78% of that provided by the UK, which I think is fair to describe as a rounding error additional points: 1. the RDF only exists because of Westminster: the UK government made it a condition when it joined the EEC in 1972 2. EU funds spent in the UK are funds from Westminster as the UK is (well, was, thankfully) a net contributor (as a general observation: innumeracy amongst ultra-remainers seems to be very common)
  - 5y ago
ThalesX 5y ago
> It's not realism to believe the EU can't exist within or facilitate your idealised frame of reference (assuming it makes sense and is something people should want), it's just negativity. As a citizen of the EU, I am arguing for the debureaucratization of institutions, for capital unlocking in proper ventures, nuclear energy, and the appropriate handling of countries from which human capital is departing faster than some war-torn ones. Frankly, I don't give a damn that some people might perceive this as 'negativity' on a forum when I have (hopefully) an entire life to live under this construct. > Quite frankly nationalistic resurgence is the #1 indicator for "euro realism", so this is a very reasonable stance to take. Quite frankly, if you're going to shove me, against evidence, in the nationalist insurgence "euro realism" and then claim it as a reasonable stance to take. I'm not sure where that leaves me in this debate. Argue with your constructed image of me all you want.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Chris2048 5y ago
> nationalistic resurgence is the #1 indicator for "euro realism" Is it though? All you did was express this opinion, you didn't prove anything. Also, multiple different indicators can correlate spuriously.

cameronh90 5y ago

Before the whole brexit issue, even most ardent EU supporters would admit that the institution was terribly dysfunctional and would need to be reinvented to survive the next few decades. The Brexit debate seems to have polarised the whole issue into either you hate the EU and everything it stands for, or you think the EU is perfect and if it wasn't for these damn national governments then we could live in utopia. Unfortunately my country is no longer part of this project, but I hope that pro-EU people take on board some of the valid criticism of the institution and make the necessary changes. Otherwise, what happened here will inevitably happen elsewhere.

toyg 5y ago
> even most ardent EU supporters would admit that the institution was terribly dysfunctional That's a mischaracterization. "Most" would have accepted that there was (and is) room for improvement, but "terribly disfunctional" is an extreme term. The view that the whole institution had to be reinvented has always been a very English idea, based on the fact that some key policies (like agricultural support) benefited other countries over Britain. Most of the continent, much more pragmatically, always understood that the EU is fundamentally a set of compromises that will continue to expand. As such, it can look confusing from a distance, but once you unpack it, the compromises actually make sense (or are the only possible way towards cooperation among such different peoples). Britain benefited hugely from infrastructure support programs, for example. The EU has always been kept together more by the sheer will of European middle-classes at large, than by this or that particular set of rules. National governments are in a constant state of tension with something that they see as a new competitor for the absolute power they enjoyed for centuries. This will likely continue to be the case for a very long time.
- arka2147483647 5y ago
  > The view that the whole institution had to be reinvented has always been a very English idea, based on the fact that some key policies (like agricultural support) benefited other countries over Britain. Most of the important discussions about EU are not held in English. I think a good part of the negative talk about EU in the English speaking sphere comes from English (Who have different needs than continental, or eastern Europe) talking with Americans (Who understand the EU even less). A lot of the moderate, compromise analyzing discussions will not be perceptible in English, because it will be held in French, German, Italian, Spanish, etc...
- blibble 5y ago
  > Britain benefited hugely from infrastructure support programs, for example. how, exactly? compared to UK government expenditure: the funding from EU programs are a rounding error
  - toyg 5y ago
    Half of Wales and Scotland was rebuilt with European money that Westminster would not have dispensed otherwise, preferring people in decaying cities to "get on yer bike". If that's a "rounding error", think what the UK government could have achieved before and since, and never bothered to.
    - blibble 5y ago
      your statement makes the bus figure look honest by comparison the block grant to Scotland in 2019/20 was £32 billion, whereas EU RDF was €1.8 billion for 2014-2020 or put another way: the UK block grant provides Scotland more than 128x more the EU funding over the same period put another way: EU funding is 0.78% of that provided by the UK, which I think is fair to describe as a rounding error additional points: 1. the RDF only exists because of Westminster: the UK government made it a condition when it joined the EEC in 1972 2. EU funds spent in the UK are funds from Westminster as the UK is (well, was, thankfully) a net contributor (as a general observation: innumeracy amongst ultra-remainers seems to be very common)
- 5y ago

ThalesX 5y ago

> It's not realism to believe the EU can't exist within or facilitate your idealised frame of reference (assuming it makes sense and is something people should want), it's just negativity. As a citizen of the EU, I am arguing for the debureaucratization of institutions, for capital unlocking in proper ventures, nuclear energy, and the appropriate handling of countries from which human capital is departing faster than some war-torn ones. Frankly, I don't give a damn that some people might perceive this as 'negativity' on a forum when I have (hopefully) an entire life to live under this construct. > Quite frankly nationalistic resurgence is the #1 indicator for "euro realism", so this is a very reasonable stance to take. Quite frankly, if you're going to shove me, against evidence, in the nationalist insurgence "euro realism" and then claim it as a reasonable stance to take. I'm not sure where that leaves me in this debate. Argue with your constructed image of me all you want.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Chris2048 5y ago

> nationalistic resurgence is the #1 indicator for "euro realism" Is it though? All you did was express this opinion, you didn't prove anything. Also, multiple different indicators can correlate spuriously.