2 ms·

" It just ignores reality." Or it acknowledges reality as it is. (I have seen lot's of europe) I don't see a need for universal regulation of everything, whic

by lukan 2y ago

" It just ignores reality." Or it acknowledges reality as it is. (I have seen lot's of europe) I don't see a need for universal regulation of everything, which of course will get messy and weird. I do see a need for standardisation of infrastructure. Track gauge of railways. No expensive roaming for telecommunication. Energy grid. Education certificates. Europol. Those things - and the debate there can also get exhausting for sure, but must not be. But whether I will buy polish meat in what shape, or french cheese in what condition, is something I would like to decide on my own and don't need EU intervention. So no debates needed there, no complications of things that need no regulation. I also don't see a need for a parliament that big at all, or actually a european parliament that has to physically meet in the first place. So expert comitees, that work on the bordercrossing problems yes - and then all the local state parliament can legalize the implementation. Pretty much what is happening right now, just with less complications.

gmueckl 2y ago
So you see the point that governance on the level of the EU is needed! The current lawmaking process on the EU level is still too convoluted and there were some minor reforms already to straighten it out a little. If we keep honing it, we'll eventually get a fine government structure at that level that works. I feel this discussion thread has run its course. I said what I want to say and anything more would be pointless repetition.
- lukan 2y ago
  It is indeed a fundamental debate out of scope for this thread. But please don't insult people in the future for coming to different conclusions than you. The tensions are high enough in general already. My main point is and was, voluntarily coorperation beats forced cooperation most of the time. And if there is a will (even if it just comes out of the fear of external forces) - then even hardcore nationalists are able to compromise. Right now they use the EU to blame anything and block things out of general principle. Using the EU as a cheap scapegoat for own failures, but also for the feeling of it being imposed on them - and to this I can relate, even though I am far from being a nationalist.

by lukan 2y ago

gmueckl 2y ago

So you see the point that governance on the level of the EU is needed! The current lawmaking process on the EU level is still too convoluted and there were some minor reforms already to straighten it out a little. If we keep honing it, we'll eventually get a fine government structure at that level that works. I feel this discussion thread has run its course. I said what I want to say and anything more would be pointless repetition.

lukan 2y ago
It is indeed a fundamental debate out of scope for this thread. But please don't insult people in the future for coming to different conclusions than you. The tensions are high enough in general already. My main point is and was, voluntarily coorperation beats forced cooperation most of the time. And if there is a will (even if it just comes out of the fear of external forces) - then even hardcore nationalists are able to compromise. Right now they use the EU to blame anything and block things out of general principle. Using the EU as a cheap scapegoat for own failures, but also for the feeling of it being imposed on them - and to this I can relate, even though I am far from being a nationalist.