5 ms·

Unless you can provide any evidence that the EU has been able to stamp out corruption, then you point is mute. They are close to 30K lobbyists in Brussels as o

Unless you can provide any evidence that the EU has been able to stamp out corruption, then you point is mute. They are close to 30K lobbyists in Brussels as of this moment. So much for stopping bribery and misinformation. See the current Chat Control law which is sponsored by foreign corporations. In a world without the EU, those companies would have had to lobby their way into 27 different parliaments and the countries most eager to proceed with a dangerous piece of legislation could have been the canary in the coal mine for the other countries about what not to do. Instead corporations can now buy their way into the inner circle of a single European commissioner (who is not elected mind you). The EU basically streamlined corruption and lacks the complete oversight to do anything about it. Finally, the EU as it exists in its current form has only been around for the last 30 years, which is a mere blip in the history of nations like France, Germany and others. To claim that only an Institution like the EU can bring an end to corruption and bribery seems a complete stretch if not an outright lie. There are more than 200 sovereign countries in the world out of which 27 decided to completely or partially relinquish their own sovereignty to a supra national agency such as the EU. This is hardly the norm and history will tell in a hundred years from now that this was bad idea, just like the USSR was a bad idea.

skummetmaelk 3y ago
> There are more than 200 sovereign countries in the world out of which 27 decided to completely or partially relinquish their own sovereignty to a supra national agency such as the EU. When is this argument going to die? Should all provinces in every country declare independence and take back control from the supra-provincial government? Should all cities in all provinces declare independence from the provincial governments too? Should every neighbourhood....? You can keep going on about the "supra-national agencies" for as long as you want. At the end of the day your argument rests on the assumption that the nation state is the final form of sovereignty, and there's just no God-given reason for that to be the case. Entities form political and economic alliances when it is beneficial to do so. There are costs associated with the benefits of course, and those must be evaluated. Your argument that it's inherently bad because "It's not a sovereign nation state any more", is just a rather weak, but infectious, talking point. I don't understand why people keep regurgitating it.
- rdm_blackhole 3y ago
  > When is this argument going to die? Should all provinces in every country declare independence and take back control from the supra-provincial government? Should all cities in all provinces declare independence from the provincial governments too? Should every neighbourhood....? If you are not aware, you should look up the Catalonian referendums and the Scottish National party. Also What about Kosovo? Because something exists does not mean it can not be dissolved or changed. Bizarrely, when it comes to the EU, most people like you say, well it's there now what do you want to do about it? But the states in Europe were there as well before the CEE and before the EU, shouldn't the same rule apply then? It is perfectly possible and acceptable for people to decide their fate. If a certain part of a country wants to be independent, why not grant them? > You can keep going on about the "supra-national agencies" for as long as you want. At the end of the day your argument rests on the assumption that the nation state is the final form of sovereignty, and there's just no God-given reason for that to be the case. I don't know about the god given reasons. But I do know that a nation is made of a history, a culture, a language, common values and a common identity. You can't just wave a wand in the air and say to 500 million people, here you go, you are no longer French, German or Spanish, you are European. It's been tried in the past with arbitrary borders being drawn between India and Pakistan and as well in Africa. We can see the results of that now. > Entities form political and economic alliances when it is beneficial to do so. There are costs associated with the benefits of course, and those must be evaluated. Your argument that it's inherently bad because "It's not a sovereign nation state any more", is just a rather weak, but infectious, talking point. I don't understand why people keep regurgitating it. Absolutely but there is a difference between an alliance and a supra national authority that can impose rules and regulations to it's members. Then its not an alliance, that's being a vassal to another state/entity. A sovereign state can decide it's fate and decide what is beneficial for itself and it's citizens. States can agree to implement laws based on pacts and treaties. That is not disputed. If there is a supreme authority that can compel you to apply laws to your citizens without their explicit approval, then, the state becomes just a shell. In essence this setup of the EU will lead the the formation of the "United states of Europe". That may be well and good for you but shouldn't the people be asked their opinions about it?
  - 3y ago
tgv 3y ago
> Unless you can provide any evidence that the EU has been able to stamp out corruption, then you point is mute. That's not the only yardstick, is it? Look at how effective large companies are in exploiting loopholes in the tax code of individual (smaller) countries, like Bermuda, Ireland and The Netherlands. The reason is that individual countries pursue this for their own interest. Corruption is probably also involved, but corruption also exists in large organizations in large countries. Do I even need to mention Trump? The only way out of this tax explotation is "harmonizing" certain taxes across the EU. That's a sensitive topic, not under the EC's jurisdiction, and progress is slow, but we'll get there. > a mere blip in the history of nations like France, Germany and others. Which Germany? Current Germany exists since 1994, and is younger than the EU. Supranational organizations are also not that new, think Holy Roman Empire. That may be taking your argument a bit too literally, but modern states are not that old. Foundations were laid around 200-250 years ago, I'd say, and can hardly be compared with today's. The EU and its predecessors now span 75 years. > This is hardly the norm and history will tell in a hundred years from now that this was bad idea, just like the USSR was a bad idea. Just wow. The EU has flaws, but that's an insane comparison.
- rdm_blackhole 3y ago
  > That's not the only yardstick, is it? Look at how effective large companies are in exploiting loopholes in the tax code of individual (smaller) countries, like Bermuda, Ireland and The Netherlands. That has nothing to do with what I said. The Claim by OP was that the EU was better at stamping out corruption because it was bigger. That's demonstrably false. Corruption and bribery existed before the EU as you pointed out and it exists now as well. So this point is mute. The only difference as I explained in my comment is that now, the entities wishing to corrupt and/or influence don't have to lobby their way into 27 different governments, they can just get cozy with one of the commissioners and push their agenda. Much more efficient and also less costly. If there is one thing I have learned in my short career as an SDE is that having a single point of failure in your organization is a recipe for disaster. You want redundancy and checks and balances so that not one person can bring the whole thing down. Here we have the exact opposite. The commissioners are chosen via back-room meetings between the ministers of the member states, their mandates are not revocable by the people, and since there is only one of them, you don't need to reach a consensus to push a new law. That in itself means that they can be easily influenced and their potential for damage is greater. > The only way out of this tax exploitation is "harmonizing" certain taxes across the EU. That's a sensitive topic, not under the EC's jurisdiction, and progress is slow, but we'll get there. I am not sure why you are bringing taxes in this thing. That was never the argument. > Which Germany? Current Germany exists since 1994, and is younger than the EU. Supranational organizations are also not that new, think Holy Roman Empire. That may be taking your argument a bit too literally, but modern states are not that old. Foundations were laid around 200-250 years ago, I'd say, and can hardly be compared with today's. The EU and its predecessors now span 75 years. That is such a straw man argument. France has a state or Kingdom has existed for a least a thousand of years. Germany was part of an empire before becoming a country that was divided and re-united later on. My comment was simply highlighting the fact that to the EU absolutists if the EU did not exist things would be worse. My contention is that countries/kingdoms/sates such as Germany and France existed in one shape or another long before the EU came along. Therefore it is possible to return to this type of states without the need for a supra national entity. > Just wow. The EU has flaws, but that's an insane comparison. The CEE's goal was to bring peace to the continent and to facilitate trade between the countries. Now the EU decides the monetary policy of the Eurozone countries, it has its own parliament, there is talk about having it's own army, there is a flag and an anthem. To top it all of the laws of the EU supersede the laws of the member states. The EU is not so much an union anymore but a burgeoning federal state that has started to swallow all it's member states. You can look up countless articles about the projects of the most radical EU absolutists such as Martin Shulz who are explicitly calling for the creation of the "United states of Europe". That in turns would result in each country's parliament becoming more or less useless therefore removing the ability for these nations to govern themselves. Except in this case the power won't be in Moscow but in Brussels.
WinstonSmith84 3y ago
> There are more than 200 sovereign countries in the world out of which 27 decided to completely or partially relinquish their own sovereignty to a supra national agency such as the EU. > This is hardly the norm and history will tell in a hundred years from now that this was bad idea, just like the USSR was a bad idea. Please, which norm are we talking about? The very first states with clear borders and independent government as we know today started to emerge in the 17th century. Germany, the most powerful state in Europe, has barely more than 30 years. Countries are a new invention in the history of mankind and it's not the most likely that they will still exist in the next 100 years. And if you think that can't be true, imagine yourself as a citizen from the Roman Empire in 350, would you think that your super powerful unrivaled empire would cease to exist 100 years later?
- zosima 3y ago
  Countries are as old as mankind. Empires are a few thousand years old. Unaccountable bureaucracies, disconnected from citizens, but with huge power over their daily lives, is definitely the new kid on the block. And generally not a very succesful one I might add. I think comparison to Soviet seems quite apt.
  - WinstonSmith84 3y ago
    Here, for your information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_da...
    - zosima 3y ago
      Countries change names and area over time. England is said to have been founded in the year 927 and obviously the roman, persian and egyptian empires vastly preceded that. There have been countries for many, many 1000s of years. The list you show there is the latest incarnation of most countries. In almost all cases, something similar preceded it.
      - 3y ago
kergonath 3y ago
> Unless you can provide any evidence that the EU has been able to stamp out corruption, then you point is mute. Right. Unless something is perfect, then it is worthless. And it’s “moot”.
- rdm_blackhole 3y ago
  I was not the one making the claim. If you make the claim, then you have to back it up. OP made a claim that being a bigger country means less corruption and less misinformation without giving any evidence. By his or her logic the biggest countries in the world would be corruption free. They are not so the OP's claim is invalidated.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    > OP made a claim that being a bigger country means less corruption and less misinformation without giving any evidence. As opposed to your evidence for your claim, because you feel yours is intuitively correct? How about providing evidence (!) for your own thing first? :) Meanwhile, there are tonnes of examples of smaller nations that have been corrupted. Look at Africa for several examples, Sri Lanka in the news about a year ago, Myanmar (ongoing), etc. :(
    - rdm_blackhole 3y ago
      > As opposed to your evidence for your claim, because you feel yours is intuitively correct? No it is not intuitively correct but it is backed-up by data. The quote I was responding to was: > Small countries have less resources to combat misinformation, bribery, and corruption of other forms. The quote in question implies that bigger countries have more power to fight disinformation and corruption. Is that true or false? > How about providing evidence (!) for your own thing first? :) If we look at the data, the answer is false. In the top 10 of the least corrupted countries, where do big countries stand? The response is that they are not in the top 10. US, China, India, Brazil, Nigeria, none are not in the top 10. That's according to https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022/ https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022/ which is a non-profit organization that fights and denounces corruption around the world. So there you go I proved my point even though I did not have too. Why? because if you tell me that the sky is green and I tell you that I don't agree with your opinion, I don't have to prove you wrong, you are the one claiming something and therefore you have to prove you point or to put it another way, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. > Meanwhile, there are tonnes of examples of smaller nations that have been corrupted. Look at Africa for several examples, Sri Lanka in the news about a year ago, Myanmar (ongoing), etc. :( This is a straw-man argument on top of cherry picked data, I can respond with the same sentence and be just as correct as you: Meanwhile, there are tonnes of examples of bigger nations that have been corrupted. Look at China for several examples, India and so on.. The bottom line is that OP made an assertion, without any evidence which has been proven wrong.
lobocinza 3y ago
Bigger the organization bigger the tendency towards corruption. Think of it in economical terms as a bigger payoff potential. It's cheaper, more effective and safer to buy a few key bureaacrats in Brussels than do the same for each country. The cherry on top is that other countries outside EU will use EU as a justification to adopt similar legislation.
lost_tourist 3y ago
moot not mute

skummetmaelk 3y ago

> There are more than 200 sovereign countries in the world out of which 27 decided to completely or partially relinquish their own sovereignty to a supra national agency such as the EU. When is this argument going to die? Should all provinces in every country declare independence and take back control from the supra-provincial government? Should all cities in all provinces declare independence from the provincial governments too? Should every neighbourhood....? You can keep going on about the "supra-national agencies" for as long as you want. At the end of the day your argument rests on the assumption that the nation state is the final form of sovereignty, and there's just no God-given reason for that to be the case. Entities form political and economic alliances when it is beneficial to do so. There are costs associated with the benefits of course, and those must be evaluated. Your argument that it's inherently bad because "It's not a sovereign nation state any more", is just a rather weak, but infectious, talking point. I don't understand why people keep regurgitating it.

rdm_blackhole 3y ago
> When is this argument going to die? Should all provinces in every country declare independence and take back control from the supra-provincial government? Should all cities in all provinces declare independence from the provincial governments too? Should every neighbourhood....? If you are not aware, you should look up the Catalonian referendums and the Scottish National party. Also What about Kosovo? Because something exists does not mean it can not be dissolved or changed. Bizarrely, when it comes to the EU, most people like you say, well it's there now what do you want to do about it? But the states in Europe were there as well before the CEE and before the EU, shouldn't the same rule apply then? It is perfectly possible and acceptable for people to decide their fate. If a certain part of a country wants to be independent, why not grant them? > You can keep going on about the "supra-national agencies" for as long as you want. At the end of the day your argument rests on the assumption that the nation state is the final form of sovereignty, and there's just no God-given reason for that to be the case. I don't know about the god given reasons. But I do know that a nation is made of a history, a culture, a language, common values and a common identity. You can't just wave a wand in the air and say to 500 million people, here you go, you are no longer French, German or Spanish, you are European. It's been tried in the past with arbitrary borders being drawn between India and Pakistan and as well in Africa. We can see the results of that now. > Entities form political and economic alliances when it is beneficial to do so. There are costs associated with the benefits of course, and those must be evaluated. Your argument that it's inherently bad because "It's not a sovereign nation state any more", is just a rather weak, but infectious, talking point. I don't understand why people keep regurgitating it. Absolutely but there is a difference between an alliance and a supra national authority that can impose rules and regulations to it's members. Then its not an alliance, that's being a vassal to another state/entity. A sovereign state can decide it's fate and decide what is beneficial for itself and it's citizens. States can agree to implement laws based on pacts and treaties. That is not disputed. If there is a supreme authority that can compel you to apply laws to your citizens without their explicit approval, then, the state becomes just a shell. In essence this setup of the EU will lead the the formation of the "United states of Europe". That may be well and good for you but shouldn't the people be asked their opinions about it?
- 3y ago

tgv 3y ago

> Unless you can provide any evidence that the EU has been able to stamp out corruption, then you point is mute. That's not the only yardstick, is it? Look at how effective large companies are in exploiting loopholes in the tax code of individual (smaller) countries, like Bermuda, Ireland and The Netherlands. The reason is that individual countries pursue this for their own interest. Corruption is probably also involved, but corruption also exists in large organizations in large countries. Do I even need to mention Trump? The only way out of this tax explotation is "harmonizing" certain taxes across the EU. That's a sensitive topic, not under the EC's jurisdiction, and progress is slow, but we'll get there. > a mere blip in the history of nations like France, Germany and others. Which Germany? Current Germany exists since 1994, and is younger than the EU. Supranational organizations are also not that new, think Holy Roman Empire. That may be taking your argument a bit too literally, but modern states are not that old. Foundations were laid around 200-250 years ago, I'd say, and can hardly be compared with today's. The EU and its predecessors now span 75 years. > This is hardly the norm and history will tell in a hundred years from now that this was bad idea, just like the USSR was a bad idea. Just wow. The EU has flaws, but that's an insane comparison.

rdm_blackhole 3y ago
> That's not the only yardstick, is it? Look at how effective large companies are in exploiting loopholes in the tax code of individual (smaller) countries, like Bermuda, Ireland and The Netherlands. That has nothing to do with what I said. The Claim by OP was that the EU was better at stamping out corruption because it was bigger. That's demonstrably false. Corruption and bribery existed before the EU as you pointed out and it exists now as well. So this point is mute. The only difference as I explained in my comment is that now, the entities wishing to corrupt and/or influence don't have to lobby their way into 27 different governments, they can just get cozy with one of the commissioners and push their agenda. Much more efficient and also less costly. If there is one thing I have learned in my short career as an SDE is that having a single point of failure in your organization is a recipe for disaster. You want redundancy and checks and balances so that not one person can bring the whole thing down. Here we have the exact opposite. The commissioners are chosen via back-room meetings between the ministers of the member states, their mandates are not revocable by the people, and since there is only one of them, you don't need to reach a consensus to push a new law. That in itself means that they can be easily influenced and their potential for damage is greater. > The only way out of this tax exploitation is "harmonizing" certain taxes across the EU. That's a sensitive topic, not under the EC's jurisdiction, and progress is slow, but we'll get there. I am not sure why you are bringing taxes in this thing. That was never the argument. > Which Germany? Current Germany exists since 1994, and is younger than the EU. Supranational organizations are also not that new, think Holy Roman Empire. That may be taking your argument a bit too literally, but modern states are not that old. Foundations were laid around 200-250 years ago, I'd say, and can hardly be compared with today's. The EU and its predecessors now span 75 years. That is such a straw man argument. France has a state or Kingdom has existed for a least a thousand of years. Germany was part of an empire before becoming a country that was divided and re-united later on. My comment was simply highlighting the fact that to the EU absolutists if the EU did not exist things would be worse. My contention is that countries/kingdoms/sates such as Germany and France existed in one shape or another long before the EU came along. Therefore it is possible to return to this type of states without the need for a supra national entity. > Just wow. The EU has flaws, but that's an insane comparison. The CEE's goal was to bring peace to the continent and to facilitate trade between the countries. Now the EU decides the monetary policy of the Eurozone countries, it has its own parliament, there is talk about having it's own army, there is a flag and an anthem. To top it all of the laws of the EU supersede the laws of the member states. The EU is not so much an union anymore but a burgeoning federal state that has started to swallow all it's member states. You can look up countless articles about the projects of the most radical EU absolutists such as Martin Shulz who are explicitly calling for the creation of the "United states of Europe". That in turns would result in each country's parliament becoming more or less useless therefore removing the ability for these nations to govern themselves. Except in this case the power won't be in Moscow but in Brussels.

WinstonSmith84 3y ago

> There are more than 200 sovereign countries in the world out of which 27 decided to completely or partially relinquish their own sovereignty to a supra national agency such as the EU. > This is hardly the norm and history will tell in a hundred years from now that this was bad idea, just like the USSR was a bad idea. Please, which norm are we talking about? The very first states with clear borders and independent government as we know today started to emerge in the 17th century. Germany, the most powerful state in Europe, has barely more than 30 years. Countries are a new invention in the history of mankind and it's not the most likely that they will still exist in the next 100 years. And if you think that can't be true, imagine yourself as a citizen from the Roman Empire in 350, would you think that your super powerful unrivaled empire would cease to exist 100 years later?

zosima 3y ago
Countries are as old as mankind. Empires are a few thousand years old. Unaccountable bureaucracies, disconnected from citizens, but with huge power over their daily lives, is definitely the new kid on the block. And generally not a very succesful one I might add. I think comparison to Soviet seems quite apt.
- WinstonSmith84 3y ago
  Here, for your information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_da...
  - zosima 3y ago
    Countries change names and area over time. England is said to have been founded in the year 927 and obviously the roman, persian and egyptian empires vastly preceded that. There have been countries for many, many 1000s of years. The list you show there is the latest incarnation of most countries. In almost all cases, something similar preceded it.
    - 3y ago

kergonath 3y ago

> Unless you can provide any evidence that the EU has been able to stamp out corruption, then you point is mute. Right. Unless something is perfect, then it is worthless. And it’s “moot”.

rdm_blackhole 3y ago
I was not the one making the claim. If you make the claim, then you have to back it up. OP made a claim that being a bigger country means less corruption and less misinformation without giving any evidence. By his or her logic the biggest countries in the world would be corruption free. They are not so the OP's claim is invalidated.
- justinclift 3y ago
  > OP made a claim that being a bigger country means less corruption and less misinformation without giving any evidence. As opposed to your evidence for your claim, because you feel yours is intuitively correct? How about providing evidence (!) for your own thing first? :) Meanwhile, there are tonnes of examples of smaller nations that have been corrupted. Look at Africa for several examples, Sri Lanka in the news about a year ago, Myanmar (ongoing), etc. :(
  - rdm_blackhole 3y ago
    > As opposed to your evidence for your claim, because you feel yours is intuitively correct? No it is not intuitively correct but it is backed-up by data. The quote I was responding to was: > Small countries have less resources to combat misinformation, bribery, and corruption of other forms. The quote in question implies that bigger countries have more power to fight disinformation and corruption. Is that true or false? > How about providing evidence (!) for your own thing first? :) If we look at the data, the answer is false. In the top 10 of the least corrupted countries, where do big countries stand? The response is that they are not in the top 10. US, China, India, Brazil, Nigeria, none are not in the top 10. That's according to https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022/ https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022/ which is a non-profit organization that fights and denounces corruption around the world. So there you go I proved my point even though I did not have too. Why? because if you tell me that the sky is green and I tell you that I don't agree with your opinion, I don't have to prove you wrong, you are the one claiming something and therefore you have to prove you point or to put it another way, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. > Meanwhile, there are tonnes of examples of smaller nations that have been corrupted. Look at Africa for several examples, Sri Lanka in the news about a year ago, Myanmar (ongoing), etc. :( This is a straw-man argument on top of cherry picked data, I can respond with the same sentence and be just as correct as you: Meanwhile, there are tonnes of examples of bigger nations that have been corrupted. Look at China for several examples, India and so on.. The bottom line is that OP made an assertion, without any evidence which has been proven wrong.

lobocinza 3y ago

Bigger the organization bigger the tendency towards corruption. Think of it in economical terms as a bigger payoff potential. It's cheaper, more effective and safer to buy a few key bureaacrats in Brussels than do the same for each country. The cherry on top is that other countries outside EU will use EU as a justification to adopt similar legislation.

lost_tourist 3y ago

moot not mute