5 ms·

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

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
      Yeah, that is true. There also should be a mechanism for kicking members out, if they are not constructive, yet remain on the receiving end. Just the threat of it, might help.

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
    Yeah, that is true. There also should be a mechanism for kicking members out, if they are not constructive, yet remain on the receiving end. Just the threat of it, might help.