4 ms·

The scope of EU laws is growing. Do member countries enjoy having social-economical policies dictated from above? This is meddling in what should be internal ma

The scope of EU laws is growing. Do member countries enjoy having social-economical policies dictated from above? This is meddling in what should be internal matters of sovereign states. Then they are surprised anti-EU sentiment is growing.

techpression 4y ago
The problem with power is that you never get enough of it, and having a massive machine like the EU populated with people elected by no other merit other than nepotism was always doomed to become a tyranny or a failure. It just takes a few decades until it becomes noticeable (like the growing anti-EU sentiment amongst member states).
AdrianB1 4y ago
EU is leaning towards German-style management of regulating everything in excess. Most people in my country don't realize what is going on, there is only a minority that is making a bit of noise, but they are too few to be believed (we have a culture where the majority opinion is considered to be "right").
- pannSun 4y ago
  It is not the amount of regulation I take issue with[1], but the scope. While I am strongly pro-EU, I am also strongly in favor of it being made up of countries that are more than just nominally sovereign and independent. Power is slowly being moved from national governments and to the EU, and I don't like this slow subversion of nations one bit. [1] Not saying over-regulation isn't a problem, merely not my main concern.
  - medstrom 4y ago
    Why don't you like it? Do you perceive rights being lost, or...?
    - pannSun 4y ago
      Yes, I believe a government that is more local, and representing a community that has more in common, will be more reflective of the wishes of that community, and more responsive (and vulnerable!) to its criticism. I find it somewhat insulting I even have to argue for this - this move of power further away is a change. It should be justified, instead of happening by default, while the former status quo of sovereign nations has to argue for its continued existence.
      - medstrom 4y ago
        I buy that smaller democracies could work better in many ways, provided they enjoy a stable peace with their neighbors. If a nation of 10M people lets a decision be made by the EU, that means the electorate for that decision goes from 10M people to suddenly 500M people. Thus the decision is "further away", with the pitfalls you mention. However, if you believe this, you must equally believe that growing a single nation's population from 10M to 500M has the exact same problems. So if you were from Belgium and it grew to 500M, you'd have to support a move to partition Belgium into 50 separate nations, for the same reason you're against the EU. Right?
        pannSun 4y ago
        > So if you were from Belgium and it grew to 500M, you'd have to support a move to partition Belgium into 50 separate nations, for the same reason you're against the EU [1]. Right? Such as how the British empire partitioned into the US, Canada, Australia.., or how China and Japan became distinct countries despite a common origin? Yes. A shared identity can support a larger country (the inverse can be seen in the breakup of Yugoslavia), but not without limit. > I buy that smaller democracies could work better in many ways It's not just about size. It's about the simple and intuitively obvious idea that it matters who chooses your rulers. I find it both fascinating and frightening that people have been so trained into ignoring their instincts (evolved through millions of years of inter-group competition, but now casually dismissed as "irrational"), that this basic notion now needs arguing. [1] A small correction: I am not against the EU - the opposite, I am strongly in favor of it, for the simple pragmatic reasons that it safeguards peace among the member states, and because the relatively small European countries would otherwise be picked off individually by larger geopolitical rivals. What I am against is the expansion of EU law into areas of law and life that can be perfectly adequately addressed by individual states themselves.
LatteLazy 4y ago
Unless I set all the laws myself, policy is always "dictated from above". Why would I care whether that's done in Brussels or Paris or my neighbors house? That's the way societies work and pretending that my country is someone "on side" and the EU is not is just silly...
- koolba 4y ago
  > Why would I care whether that's done in Brussels or Paris or my neighbors house? Because if you disagree with the law or want to change it, it’s a lot easier to go over to your neighbors house than it is to travel to Brussels. That’s the entire point of small / local government.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- pannSun 4y ago
  Of course, if we pretend nations don't exist and their people have no common interest, it doesn't matter if laws come from your national government, from Brussels, or from a distant capital like Washington or Beijing. So long as you get a vote, even if diluted by millions or billions of new fellow citizens, it's all the same.
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    I think without meaning to, your making my point for me? My vote is diluted with 60mil others. Does diluting it with 500m others in the eu actually cost me any say? I think not in practical terms... And nations might exist. But that doesn't have much to do with governments these days. I like in the UK, 4 countries (plus other bits)under one government. A whole bunch of different nations under those countries. I have a lot more in common with people in other big cities like (say) Paris or Berlin since I am from London. I have very little in common with someone from the Welsh valleys or the rural england. Yet we're all under the same UK government. The point here is that moving power from Westminster to Brussels has no real effect on my representation. Nor does it harm "common interest". Both of those are basically gone when you have more than 100 people in your sovereign entity.

techpression 4y ago

The problem with power is that you never get enough of it, and having a massive machine like the EU populated with people elected by no other merit other than nepotism was always doomed to become a tyranny or a failure. It just takes a few decades until it becomes noticeable (like the growing anti-EU sentiment amongst member states).

AdrianB1 4y ago

EU is leaning towards German-style management of regulating everything in excess. Most people in my country don't realize what is going on, there is only a minority that is making a bit of noise, but they are too few to be believed (we have a culture where the majority opinion is considered to be "right").

pannSun 4y ago
It is not the amount of regulation I take issue with[1], but the scope. While I am strongly pro-EU, I am also strongly in favor of it being made up of countries that are more than just nominally sovereign and independent. Power is slowly being moved from national governments and to the EU, and I don't like this slow subversion of nations one bit. [1] Not saying over-regulation isn't a problem, merely not my main concern.
- medstrom 4y ago
  Why don't you like it? Do you perceive rights being lost, or...?
  - pannSun 4y ago
    Yes, I believe a government that is more local, and representing a community that has more in common, will be more reflective of the wishes of that community, and more responsive (and vulnerable!) to its criticism. I find it somewhat insulting I even have to argue for this - this move of power further away is a change. It should be justified, instead of happening by default, while the former status quo of sovereign nations has to argue for its continued existence.
    - medstrom 4y ago
      I buy that smaller democracies could work better in many ways, provided they enjoy a stable peace with their neighbors. If a nation of 10M people lets a decision be made by the EU, that means the electorate for that decision goes from 10M people to suddenly 500M people. Thus the decision is "further away", with the pitfalls you mention. However, if you believe this, you must equally believe that growing a single nation's population from 10M to 500M has the exact same problems. So if you were from Belgium and it grew to 500M, you'd have to support a move to partition Belgium into 50 separate nations, for the same reason you're against the EU. Right?
      - pannSun 4y ago
        > So if you were from Belgium and it grew to 500M, you'd have to support a move to partition Belgium into 50 separate nations, for the same reason you're against the EU [1]. Right? Such as how the British empire partitioned into the US, Canada, Australia.., or how China and Japan became distinct countries despite a common origin? Yes. A shared identity can support a larger country (the inverse can be seen in the breakup of Yugoslavia), but not without limit. > I buy that smaller democracies could work better in many ways It's not just about size. It's about the simple and intuitively obvious idea that it matters who chooses your rulers. I find it both fascinating and frightening that people have been so trained into ignoring their instincts (evolved through millions of years of inter-group competition, but now casually dismissed as "irrational"), that this basic notion now needs arguing. [1] A small correction: I am not against the EU - the opposite, I am strongly in favor of it, for the simple pragmatic reasons that it safeguards peace among the member states, and because the relatively small European countries would otherwise be picked off individually by larger geopolitical rivals. What I am against is the expansion of EU law into areas of law and life that can be perfectly adequately addressed by individual states themselves.

LatteLazy 4y ago

Unless I set all the laws myself, policy is always "dictated from above". Why would I care whether that's done in Brussels or Paris or my neighbors house? That's the way societies work and pretending that my country is someone "on side" and the EU is not is just silly...

koolba 4y ago
> Why would I care whether that's done in Brussels or Paris or my neighbors house? Because if you disagree with the law or want to change it, it’s a lot easier to go over to your neighbors house than it is to travel to Brussels. That’s the entire point of small / local government.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
pannSun 4y ago
Of course, if we pretend nations don't exist and their people have no common interest, it doesn't matter if laws come from your national government, from Brussels, or from a distant capital like Washington or Beijing. So long as you get a vote, even if diluted by millions or billions of new fellow citizens, it's all the same.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  I think without meaning to, your making my point for me? My vote is diluted with 60mil others. Does diluting it with 500m others in the eu actually cost me any say? I think not in practical terms... And nations might exist. But that doesn't have much to do with governments these days. I like in the UK, 4 countries (plus other bits)under one government. A whole bunch of different nations under those countries. I have a lot more in common with people in other big cities like (say) Paris or Berlin since I am from London. I have very little in common with someone from the Welsh valleys or the rural england. Yet we're all under the same UK government. The point here is that moving power from Westminster to Brussels has no real effect on my representation. Nor does it harm "common interest". Both of those are basically gone when you have more than 100 people in your sovereign entity.