4 ms·

For Serbia to be anywhere a remotely important player would need to join the EU - looks at the former Yugoslavia states - Croatia and Slovenia (which Serbia had

by xxs 3y ago

For Serbia to be anywhere a remotely important player would need to join the EU - looks at the former Yugoslavia states - Croatia and Slovenia (which Serbia had wars with), they are doing way better. However, if Serbs are to the EU, they would have to fall in-line, so ain't gonna happen (become a player)

BrandoElFollito 3y ago
They would have to fall in line until they join. After that it will be one more country to pull the EU in its direction. I am very much pro-European but the way the organization works is not viable. Particularly the requirement to have agreement from everyone on everything is not scalable.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "Particularly the requirement to have agreement from everyone on everything is not scalable." So far it mostly works, no? I really do not want the EU to become a unionized state that engages in imperialism. My main problem with the EU is the lack of transparency and democracy.
  - BrandoElFollito 3y ago
    > So far it mostly works, no? Not really. It works in some cases but globally you have laws that are not applied in countries because it is how it works. I am not an economist and would love to see hard numbers about how the EU in its current constitution is better than having the core members alone. I am in France and see that we are a net payer which does not make me happy. Not because we pay, but rather because how countries that receive this money use it.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      Well, I am in germany and I am already not happy how our own government uses the tax money, despite that it pays also other members who do even worse things. I would change lots of things if I could. But my point was that I don't think the problem of the EU is that it does not have too much centralized power. Still, it mostly works. We have peace within the EU. We can go anywhere and start a new life just like that, that is pretty amazing. Especially if you consider how it was before.
      - BrandoElFollito 3y ago
        Yes, there are plenty of good things that happened (especially at the beginning) that are positive to everyone (travel, mobile rates, ...). But look at how the slightest controversial point is vetoed. Sometimes by the Poland/Hungary team, sometimes by France, sometimes by Germany, or Spain, or anybody else. Normally functioning democracies work on majorities. Do you think that your country would work is every citizen would need to agree to some law? It would be the end (like it was, BTW, in Poland at the end of the 18 century because of exactly this way of functioning of their parliament). The other thing is that the money France pays (a net debit, like Germany) goes to countries that are openly anti-EU and prefer to buy South Korean weapons and not EU ones. There is no common direction the EU points to.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        "Do you think that your country would work is every citizen would need to agree to some law?" I like how switzerland works. If there is no broad support for a new law, then it does not happen. So not everyone has to agree, but yes there must be a broad consensus. I think this can also work on the european level, but of course not, if every small detail has to decided on the top level. Only the questions of europe wide concern should be debated there. There need to be some standards, but not universal standards for everything. I mean, we cannot even decide for Strassbourg or Bruessel for parliamanet..
        BrandoElFollito 3y ago
        It is just a definition of "broad" that is needed. Today for the EU is "every country must agree". If we set up a definition o f"broad" based on population or contribution (or contribution per population) then it could work. I understand that this is not ideal for smaller countries (or the ones that do not participate enough) but it is difficult to admit that whole countries are taken hostage by others, independently of their participation. This veto-based system simply does not work at scale
        hutzlibu 3y ago
- xxs 3y ago
  about scalability, what's the alternative? We already have the bright example of the UK not liking their own [special] deal/fate.
  - BrandoElFollito 3y ago
    Use a majoritarian vote (with some fraction of the EU parliament required to pass the law/decision) - like in other democratic places.
    - xxs 3y ago
      Well that will never work, see the remark about the UK - also it effectively removes any small country from any decision making, and the EU consists of mostly 'small' countries.
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  "Particularly the requirement to have agreement from everyone on everything is not scalable." Imho that is a feature: the EU's power depends directly on how much its members' noses are in the same direction. Where this breaks down is exactly when it's "majority decides, decision is forced top-down onto member states, even those who didn't agree". EU-wide cooperation (with willing members) is good. Some kind of 'EU superstate' is not.
  - BrandoElFollito 3y ago
    A place where everyone must agree on everything is bound to fail. It has never worked in the history of humanity (which may be an exaggeration and I would be curious to learn about a case that did) The EU is a construction that in average is expected to be profitable to everyone. If you have someone who can veto this just because they can it will not move forward. I am actually surprised that Brexit did not end with side agreements between UK and individual EU countries as it is usually the case.

by xxs 3y ago

BrandoElFollito 3y ago

They would have to fall in line until they join. After that it will be one more country to pull the EU in its direction. I am very much pro-European but the way the organization works is not viable. Particularly the requirement to have agreement from everyone on everything is not scalable.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"Particularly the requirement to have agreement from everyone on everything is not scalable." So far it mostly works, no? I really do not want the EU to become a unionized state that engages in imperialism. My main problem with the EU is the lack of transparency and democracy.
- BrandoElFollito 3y ago
  > So far it mostly works, no? Not really. It works in some cases but globally you have laws that are not applied in countries because it is how it works. I am not an economist and would love to see hard numbers about how the EU in its current constitution is better than having the core members alone. I am in France and see that we are a net payer which does not make me happy. Not because we pay, but rather because how countries that receive this money use it.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Well, I am in germany and I am already not happy how our own government uses the tax money, despite that it pays also other members who do even worse things. I would change lots of things if I could. But my point was that I don't think the problem of the EU is that it does not have too much centralized power. Still, it mostly works. We have peace within the EU. We can go anywhere and start a new life just like that, that is pretty amazing. Especially if you consider how it was before.
    - BrandoElFollito 3y ago
      Yes, there are plenty of good things that happened (especially at the beginning) that are positive to everyone (travel, mobile rates, ...). But look at how the slightest controversial point is vetoed. Sometimes by the Poland/Hungary team, sometimes by France, sometimes by Germany, or Spain, or anybody else. Normally functioning democracies work on majorities. Do you think that your country would work is every citizen would need to agree to some law? It would be the end (like it was, BTW, in Poland at the end of the 18 century because of exactly this way of functioning of their parliament). The other thing is that the money France pays (a net debit, like Germany) goes to countries that are openly anti-EU and prefer to buy South Korean weapons and not EU ones. There is no common direction the EU points to.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        "Do you think that your country would work is every citizen would need to agree to some law?" I like how switzerland works. If there is no broad support for a new law, then it does not happen. So not everyone has to agree, but yes there must be a broad consensus. I think this can also work on the european level, but of course not, if every small detail has to decided on the top level. Only the questions of europe wide concern should be debated there. There need to be some standards, but not universal standards for everything. I mean, we cannot even decide for Strassbourg or Bruessel for parliamanet..
        BrandoElFollito 3y ago
        It is just a definition of "broad" that is needed. Today for the EU is "every country must agree". If we set up a definition o f"broad" based on population or contribution (or contribution per population) then it could work. I understand that this is not ideal for smaller countries (or the ones that do not participate enough) but it is difficult to admit that whole countries are taken hostage by others, independently of their participation. This veto-based system simply does not work at scale
        hutzlibu 3y ago
xxs 3y ago
about scalability, what's the alternative? We already have the bright example of the UK not liking their own [special] deal/fate.
- BrandoElFollito 3y ago
  Use a majoritarian vote (with some fraction of the EU parliament required to pass the law/decision) - like in other democratic places.
  - xxs 3y ago
    Well that will never work, see the remark about the UK - also it effectively removes any small country from any decision making, and the EU consists of mostly 'small' countries.
RetroTechie 3y ago
"Particularly the requirement to have agreement from everyone on everything is not scalable." Imho that is a feature: the EU's power depends directly on how much its members' noses are in the same direction. Where this breaks down is exactly when it's "majority decides, decision is forced top-down onto member states, even those who didn't agree". EU-wide cooperation (with willing members) is good. Some kind of 'EU superstate' is not.
- BrandoElFollito 3y ago
  A place where everyone must agree on everything is bound to fail. It has never worked in the history of humanity (which may be an exaggeration and I would be curious to learn about a case that did) The EU is a construction that in average is expected to be profitable to everyone. If you have someone who can veto this just because they can it will not move forward. I am actually surprised that Brexit did not end with side agreements between UK and individual EU countries as it is usually the case.