4 ms·

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 s

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)
- cameronh90 5y ago
  > a very English idea The UK didn't even have the worst public opinion of the EU in Europe on average. Public polling has generally shown other countries - including Italy, Greece and France - have an approximately similar (or worse) opinion of the EU than we did. There's a significant chance that Sweden would have ended up having a referendum on membership if we hadn't, but how terribly it's gone for us has put off many of the eurosceptics elsewhere. During the worst of the Eurozone crisis, there were many who genuinely thought that the entire bloc would - or should - collapse. I also think people here do understand it's a set of compromises. The question for many is whether the set of compromises has become too large and unwieldly. The common view of eurosceptics in the UK was that the scope had crept too far, and that we could gain most of the benefits through a normal trade agreement without having to compromise on aspects like agriculture, fisheries, immigration control and ceding control over national law and third party trade. I think so far this is not going well, but it's still an open question. What you point out about Brits not understanding EU press is touching on an major issue a lot of people had with it: how can a supranational institution taking over national government function be truly democratic if you don't even have a standard language, and can't understand each other's press? A common aspect of countries with poorly functioning democracies is they don't have a common culture or language. Whenever I've needed information about the EU, it's always been difficult to find because the EU websites are poor and the source material is often in French or another language that I can't understand. I absolutely agree that the compromises are necessary for the EU to function in its current state. However, perhaps the EU scope has become too large given how disparate the members are? If your partner desperately wants to live in Europe and you desperately want to live in the USA, does it really make sense to compromise by living on a boat in the Atlantic? Or is it better to just be friends instead...
  - toyg 5y ago
    > The UK didn't even have the worst public opinion of the EU in Europe on average. The UK is the only country where significant chunks of the elites kept explicitly advocating for (and are now putting in practice) a future outside the bloc. I'm Italian, and with all the usual complaints about this or that policy, Italian elites have never seriously considered backtracking on the project - because they all realize that the European nation-state is dead meat in the age of continent-sized superpowers. Of course they'll bitch and moan that they can't currency-inflate their way out of economic crisis anymore, but that is it; once Eurozone institutions are tweaked to allow for more fiscal transfers across the Union, as it's slowly happening, there won't be any real reason to leave. Same basically goes for French elites - with the last humiliation in Mali a painful reminder of their actual standing in this brave new world. The only country with a potential future outside the bloc is Germany, but they benefit from it so much in practice that it's never going to happen. > how can a supranational institution taking over national government function be truly democratic if you don't even have a standard language This is really a non-issue, EU institutions employ an army of translators and everything is available in any chosen lingo. The working lingua franca are effectively two, French and English. Any decently-educated European is bilingual, these days, to a decent level. It's more about insularity of the intellectual and political classes in this or that country. Probably because of the overabundance of cultural production coming from the US, the UK outside London is extremely insular. Pretty much any continental elite-person will consume The Economist and the Financial Times in addition to their local press; whereas the UK intellighentsia hardly every touches any continental press. > f your partner desperately wants to live in Europe and you desperately want to live in the USA When the alternative is being overrun by Russian tanks and American F15, yes, the Atlantic island will have to do. We will all bitch and moan, sure, but we'll get on it.

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)
cameronh90 5y ago
> a very English idea The UK didn't even have the worst public opinion of the EU in Europe on average. Public polling has generally shown other countries - including Italy, Greece and France - have an approximately similar (or worse) opinion of the EU than we did. There's a significant chance that Sweden would have ended up having a referendum on membership if we hadn't, but how terribly it's gone for us has put off many of the eurosceptics elsewhere. During the worst of the Eurozone crisis, there were many who genuinely thought that the entire bloc would - or should - collapse. I also think people here do understand it's a set of compromises. The question for many is whether the set of compromises has become too large and unwieldly. The common view of eurosceptics in the UK was that the scope had crept too far, and that we could gain most of the benefits through a normal trade agreement without having to compromise on aspects like agriculture, fisheries, immigration control and ceding control over national law and third party trade. I think so far this is not going well, but it's still an open question. What you point out about Brits not understanding EU press is touching on an major issue a lot of people had with it: how can a supranational institution taking over national government function be truly democratic if you don't even have a standard language, and can't understand each other's press? A common aspect of countries with poorly functioning democracies is they don't have a common culture or language. Whenever I've needed information about the EU, it's always been difficult to find because the EU websites are poor and the source material is often in French or another language that I can't understand. I absolutely agree that the compromises are necessary for the EU to function in its current state. However, perhaps the EU scope has become too large given how disparate the members are? If your partner desperately wants to live in Europe and you desperately want to live in the USA, does it really make sense to compromise by living on a boat in the Atlantic? Or is it better to just be friends instead...
- toyg 5y ago
  > The UK didn't even have the worst public opinion of the EU in Europe on average. The UK is the only country where significant chunks of the elites kept explicitly advocating for (and are now putting in practice) a future outside the bloc. I'm Italian, and with all the usual complaints about this or that policy, Italian elites have never seriously considered backtracking on the project - because they all realize that the European nation-state is dead meat in the age of continent-sized superpowers. Of course they'll bitch and moan that they can't currency-inflate their way out of economic crisis anymore, but that is it; once Eurozone institutions are tweaked to allow for more fiscal transfers across the Union, as it's slowly happening, there won't be any real reason to leave. Same basically goes for French elites - with the last humiliation in Mali a painful reminder of their actual standing in this brave new world. The only country with a potential future outside the bloc is Germany, but they benefit from it so much in practice that it's never going to happen. > how can a supranational institution taking over national government function be truly democratic if you don't even have a standard language This is really a non-issue, EU institutions employ an army of translators and everything is available in any chosen lingo. The working lingua franca are effectively two, French and English. Any decently-educated European is bilingual, these days, to a decent level. It's more about insularity of the intellectual and political classes in this or that country. Probably because of the overabundance of cultural production coming from the US, the UK outside London is extremely insular. Pretty much any continental elite-person will consume The Economist and the Financial Times in addition to their local press; whereas the UK intellighentsia hardly every touches any continental press. > f your partner desperately wants to live in Europe and you desperately want to live in the USA When the alternative is being overrun by Russian tanks and American F15, yes, the Atlantic island will have to do. We will all bitch and moan, sure, but we'll get on it.