The EU comprises of what, historically, has been a collection of bickering nation states. Choosing to cooperate on an economic level has at least granted them some bargaining power against the bigger power blocks of this world. The EU has many faults, but thinking things will greatly improve once you remove the one level on which they managed to cooperate so far seems far fetched to me. Granted, I'm a citizen of one of the smaller members so we stand to lose more, but even we have of growing share of "exiteers". And with our (fr)enemies applying divide and conquer with increasing success, I guess we'll find out soon enough.
I think exiteers enjoy all of the European freedoms but are dissatisfied with their national government. Then it's easy to blame the intangible, supranational EU in Brussels for everything. Even some politicians like to shrug their shoulders and refer to EU rules instead of explaining them, and which is why members of EU parliament from own country helped enforce them.
Exiteers have to be blamed for not knowing how the EU works. Admittedly, a complex, large structure there in Brussels, Strasbourg, Luxembourg. And they have no idea what it means to go on without this structure as UK is trying to do. We don't regard the French as (fr)enemies, but the British perspective against ... nos amis ... was always appreciated here.
More like EU law. Dissolve it now. I thought a couple of Scandiwegian countries were thinking about leaving? Norway was never in it, they have more sense.
This is a very distorted description of Scandinavia. The Danes have always been reluctant to give up sovereignty to the EU. They insisted not to adapt the Euro currency when they joined. They rejected EU defense policy until recently. But they will never leave.[EDIT:]They build a long 'garden fence' along the German border to stop immigration of continental wild boars. Fence is ~1.5m (5 ft) high. Whenever a reason was found, they pop up temporary border checks until Brussels "knocks" in annoyance at their door.
Norway is only formally not a EU member. In the 1960s membership applications were indirectly rejected by France twice, rejecting UK (and thereby Norway). Since then Norwegians, who have become very rich through oil and gas in the meantime, have been sulking and most recently (1994) rejected accession in a referendum. However, the NOR government, like Iceland, Switzerland and its annex Liechtenstein, has ratified about 90% of EU law (freedom of movement, immigration, no border controls, labor laws, taxes, free trade, ...) and pays billions to the EU budget for this. Oslo implements what EU decides without being represented in the EU parliament.
Exiteers have to be blamed for not knowing how the EU works. Admittedly, a complex, large structure there in Brussels, Strasbourg, Luxembourg. And they have no idea what it means to go on without this structure as UK is trying to do.
I think the Countries that left or never joined the EU will come to regret that decision one day, here in the US we fought a civil war over lots of things but in the end came back together for the good of everyone. We enjoy free trade, mostly, between the States and even travel with no passports or visas required or even asked for. A person can also drive from one State to another and their license is valid no matter which State they are in, however if they move they are required to get a new license in the new State they are living in within a time specified by that States Laws.
I think the Countries that left or never joined the EU will come to regret that decision one day
While I agree, you see the sentiment turning sour. Not in the last place for the reasons Scrooge mentioned. But I agree that if that sentiment were to win out, people will come to regret it in the end. The debate is often dumbed down to catchy oneliners meaning the subtleties and important distinctions get lost in the shouting. As I said before, I think the EU needs reform and rethinking: in any centralized government bloat and overreach is a constant threat. But I believe this union is much like one of the greatest politicians once described democracy: the worst form of government, except for all the others.
While I agree, you see the sentiment turning sour. Not in the last place for the reasons Scrooge mentioned. But I agree that if that sentiment were to win out, people will come to regret it in the end. The debate is often dumbed down to catchy oneliners meaning the subtleties and important distinctions get lost in the shouting. As I said before, I think the EU needs reform and rethinking: in any centralized government bloat and overreach is a constant threat. But I believe this union is much like one of the greatest politicians once described democracy: the worst form of government, except for all the others.
Sometimes a significant share of voters decide against their own interests, out of anger, for legitimate reasons, at least without really thinking about it. A big annoyance are the many non-voters. How would they have decided if voting was compulsory? In the end everyone has to suffer from consequences. There is no other way. The pain must increase. The suffering must go on long enough for the majority to identify their mistake and hopefully correct it a generation later.
EU reform is necessary (bloat and overreach). They have become unambitious in key issues that are not yet future-proof. We had a rupture between the generation of politicians who negotiated the EC/EU in the beginning. They were shaped by the war, the motive for which was: we have to interconnect our countries so closely economically that our opposing interests can no longer lead to irresolvable conflicts and thus war. A free trade zone is insufficient, since more liberal states could gain unfair economic advantages in tax laws or by currency devaluation. But these founding fathers always thought of a Commonwealth that gradually, slowly moved closer together, never of a federal state with a constitution like in the U.S. Today's young generation of EU politicians is networked across Europe, multilingual, modern, progressive, sees itself as one big family. They developed a conviction to move forward together, to unite their countries ever more closely, to standardize further, to claim more sovereign rights. They forgot the origins and have lost sight of the core vision.
I have the suspicion that the majority of the Danes, French, Germans, Spaniards... [long list] don't want that at all. On average they are not that cosmopolitan. It might just take another 50 or 100 years. It can't be forced. Until then, it will be different nations with their own languages. Language (still) limits the mobility and personal relationships. Wars of the 19th and 20th century shaped sharp language borders where previously there were large mixed language regions (e.g. DE<->PL, DE<->CZ). A federal state with an ever more powerful central administration won't be accepted—maybe in 50 years.
But differences are a huge benefit. I'm always amazed when I discover things abroad that are completely different from ours, but solved better. A powerful central administration will always push for standardization, the compromise on which the majority can agree, surely not the best one.
If you allow the errors of the past in, then it will collapse one way or another.
I do not know if all the errors can be kept out without introducing other possibly bigger issues and problems. The structure may not allow itself to be corrected fast enough when an issue arises. It is your people and you must decide which things may need federal control and which things need local control. I take an example, road signage. I'm sure it is desirable to have a uniform standard for all road signs, size, placement, iconography while still allowing the local language. If not done federally then some pompous jerk of high self importance will make his own. Where as watering restrictions on gardens would be much better suited to local control than federal. You have to come up with the areas when common ground methods are far more important than local variation and vice-versa.
When many generations passed by or mistakes wer made on other continents, people forget about. Thanks for the link. I didn't know this at all. The U.S. history before 19th century is vaguely known here. It's roughly: seceding from the Empire in 1776, Constitution, Wars of Independence, expansion for 200 years, a civil war in between. The beginnings seem to have been far more complex than we know. We project today's American power back in time without realizing how weak it was then compared to competing British, French, Spanish empires. But there always was the dominating English language which helps forming a unified idea of statehood.
From your Confederation period article: characteristics of a weak central government, EU qualifies to all but two. We're still at the beginning:
☑ "weak confederal government"
☑ "delegates acted on behalf of the states they represented"
☑ "unicameral body [...] had little authority, [...] not independent of the states"
☑ "no chief executive" (there is, but symbolic only, without true power)
☒ "no court system"
☑ "no power to levy taxes"
☒ "no power to regulate foreign or interstate commerce"
☑ "no power to effectively negotiate with foreign powers"
☑ "leading political figures of the day served in state governments [...]"
☑ "no control over military" (many: NATO, which isn't centralized either)
Quote:
If you allow the errors of the past in, then it will collapse one way or another.
I do not know if all the errors can be kept out without introducing other possibly bigger issues and problems. The structure may not allow itself to be corrected fast enough when an issue arises.
Yes that's true, but difficult to go any further at the moment. The majority still doesn't developed a self-image: I'm European, other Europeans' affairs affect me too. This doesn't exist yet, only among the EU elites in Brussels and Luxembourg, maybe in Berlin, Paris, Madrid, ... nowhere else. To this day there are no effective programs to bring a large share of European youth to live in a neighboring country for a year. I live close to the Polish border, Czech Republic is also not far. There are maybe one or two schools where you can learn Polish, nowhere Czech, but Russian is still offered everywhere. In Central, Eastern and Northern Europe, English is the new 'lingua franca' of the youth. In the West and South (Roman languages) this doesn't hold. I failed several times speaking in English or French to young people in the Italian and Spanish countryside. With many expats from France and Spain in Germany, one often observes a lack of will to improve English skills. Maybe there's a sense of belonging to an earlier global culture. I don't know. Working together is often bumpy. The German president of the EU Commission is Ursula von der Leyen: Why was she undemocratically chosen by heads of state over the proposed candidate (another German)? Because she speaks perfectly French, which is rare for Germans today. France rejects non-French speaking presidents of EU commission. Such national sensitivities are difficult to overcome and prevent a powerful central government.
Gary Charpentier wrote:
It is your people and you must decide which things may need federal control and which things need local control. I take an example, road signage. I'm sure it is desirable to have a uniform standard for all road signs, size, placement, iconography while still allowing the local language. If not done federally then some pompous jerk of high self importance will make his own. Where as watering restrictions on gardens would be much better suited to local control than federal. You have to come up with the areas when common ground methods are far more important than local variation and vice-versa.
Road signage: In theory true, but there are also reasons not to unify everything. Most countries replaced text on roadsigns by symbols whereever possible. European roadsigns, their iconography look almost the same since more than 70 years (comparision figures at end of page). The fonts differ and different background colours are used for signposts (green, blue, yellowish, white), doesn't matter. Ambiguities still exists with short text references, e.g. in France a reminder for a speed limit reads: "Rappel" (reminder), instead of round sign alone. Or "à droite", "à gauche" instead of arrows pointing right or left—nonsense. Greece (greek) and Bulgaria (cyrrilic) have bi-lingual signs and wouldn't do without their non-latin script.
But road construction rules differ greatly, e.g. safe design of freeways, intersections, junctions, town entrances, cycle paths. Scandinavians and Dutch are at least 30 years ahead of us; in Portugal they may don't understand what the effort is for. Road safety is extremely important in Scandinavia due to long winter nights and bad weather, less so in the Mediterranean. I'd like to keep "local variation" where there's no need to unify. But we should have federal control over air traffic, which we still don't have—not to speak of Air Policing (intercept non-communicating aircraft). But I mourn the former variety of car licence plates. Today they all look almost the same: Same dimensions, background and text color. At least the local fonts survived. Only micro nations (e.g. Liechtenstein, Monaco, Andorra) kept their exotic plates. With EU-type license plates, origin can only be recognized up close.
When many generations passed by or mistakes wer made on other continents, people forget about. Thanks for the link. I didn't know this at all. The U.S. history before 19th century is vaguely known here. It's roughly: seceding from the Empire in 1776, Constitution, Wars of Independence, expansion for 200 years, a civil war in between. The beginnings seem to have been far more complex than we know. We project today's American power back in time without realizing how weak it was then compared to competing British, French, Spanish empires. But there always was the dominating English language which helps forming a unified idea of statehood.
One thing to keep in mind the Americans had pirates on their side and the British had to bring everything they wanted across the ocean which could take weeks or more depending on the winds, ie the Americans fought smart and when they inflicted enough casualties the British had to withdraw due to lack of manpower. The other thing the Americans did was to 'fight dirty' according to the 'rules of battle' at the time, ie they hid behind trees and rocks while the British moved forward in nice neat rows across open ground and were easy targets. Yes both sides used Indians but their numbers were so small that while they did have an effect it was only a minor one in the big picture.
The vast majority of American Citizens can't say why the Declaration of Independence was in 1776 and the Constitution adopted in 1787. I'm sure almost none of the extreme loud mouth partisans here have any clue.
As to roads, there is a national standards document, but it allows considerable variance for local conditions and even some whims. It is not law, but a guideline. Few dare deviate from it however because we are a litigious society and being able to point to a standard makes a good defense. Standardization is further enhanced as to get federal funds to maintain the road it must meet the standards. One obvious set of differences is hurricane resistance, another earthquake resistance. I believe that there are tiers based on event likelihood and good engineering practice. No one said this was going to be a two paragraph standard.
mikey wrote: I sure hope
)
Hear hear!
E pluribus unum
Jinkei schrieb:The EU
)
I think exiteers enjoy all of the European freedoms but are dissatisfied with their national government. Then it's easy to blame the intangible, supranational EU in Brussels for everything. Even some politicians like to shrug their shoulders and refer to EU rules instead of explaining them, and which is why members of EU parliament from own country helped enforce them.
Exiteers have to be blamed for not knowing how the EU works. Admittedly, a complex, large structure there in Brussels, Strasbourg, Luxembourg. And they have no idea what it means to go on without this structure as UK is trying to do. We don't regard the French as (fr)enemies, but the British perspective against ... nos amis ... was always appreciated here.
Kate Ewart schrieb:More like
)
This is a very distorted description of Scandinavia. The Danes have always been reluctant to give up sovereignty to the EU. They insisted not to adapt the Euro currency when they joined. They rejected EU defense policy until recently. But they will never leave.[EDIT:]They build a long 'garden fence' along the German border to stop immigration of continental wild boars. Fence is ~1.5m (5 ft) high. Whenever a reason was found, they pop up temporary border checks until Brussels "knocks" in annoyance at their door.
Norway is only formally not a EU member. In the 1960s membership applications were indirectly rejected by France twice, rejecting UK (and thereby Norway). Since then Norwegians, who have become very rich through oil and gas in the meantime, have been sulking and most recently (1994) rejected accession in a referendum. However, the NOR government, like Iceland, Switzerland and its annex Liechtenstein, has ratified about 90% of EU law (freedom of movement, immigration, no border controls, labor laws, taxes, free trade, ...) and pays billions to the EU budget for this. Oslo implements what EU decides without being represented in the EU parliament.
Scrooge McDuck
)
I think the Countries that left or never joined the EU will come to regret that decision one day, here in the US we fought a civil war over lots of things but in the end came back together for the good of everyone. We enjoy free trade, mostly, between the States and even travel with no passports or visas required or even asked for. A person can also drive from one State to another and their license is valid no matter which State they are in, however if they move they are required to get a new license in the new State they are living in within a time specified by that States Laws.
mikey wrote:I think the
)
While I agree, you see the sentiment turning sour. Not in the last place for the reasons Scrooge mentioned. But I agree that if that sentiment were to win out, people will come to regret it in the end. The debate is often dumbed down to catchy oneliners meaning the subtleties and important distinctions get lost in the shouting. As I said before, I think the EU needs reform and rethinking: in any centralized government bloat and overreach is a constant threat. But I believe this union is much like one of the greatest politicians once described democracy: the worst form of government, except for all the others.
E pluribus unum
Jinkei schrieb:While I agree,
)
One should be careful to not
)
One should be careful to not repeat the mistakes of old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_period
If you allow the errors of the past in, then it will collapse one way or another.
I do not know if all the errors can be kept out without introducing other possibly bigger issues and problems. The structure may not allow itself to be corrected fast enough when an issue arises. It is your people and you must decide which things may need federal control and which things need local control. I take an example, road signage. I'm sure it is desirable to have a uniform standard for all road signs, size, placement, iconography while still allowing the local language. If not done federally then some pompous jerk of high self importance will make his own. Where as watering restrictions on gardens would be much better suited to local control than federal. You have to come up with the areas when common ground methods are far more important than local variation and vice-versa.
Good luck.
Gary Charpentier schrieb:One
)
When many generations passed by or mistakes wer made on other continents, people forget about. Thanks for the link. I didn't know this at all. The U.S. history before 19th century is vaguely known here. It's roughly: seceding from the Empire in 1776, Constitution, Wars of Independence, expansion for 200 years, a civil war in between. The beginnings seem to have been far more complex than we know. We project today's American power back in time without realizing how weak it was then compared to competing British, French, Spanish empires. But there always was the dominating English language which helps forming a unified idea of statehood.
From your Confederation period article: characteristics of a weak central government, EU qualifies to all but two. We're still at the beginning:
Yes that's true, but difficult to go any further at the moment. The majority still doesn't developed a self-image: I'm European, other Europeans' affairs affect me too. This doesn't exist yet, only among the EU elites in Brussels and Luxembourg, maybe in Berlin, Paris, Madrid, ... nowhere else. To this day there are no effective programs to bring a large share of European youth to live in a neighboring country for a year. I live close to the Polish border, Czech Republic is also not far. There are maybe one or two schools where you can learn Polish, nowhere Czech, but Russian is still offered everywhere. In Central, Eastern and Northern Europe, English is the new 'lingua franca' of the youth. In the West and South (Roman languages) this doesn't hold. I failed several times speaking in English or French to young people in the Italian and Spanish countryside. With many expats from France and Spain in Germany, one often observes a lack of will to improve English skills. Maybe there's a sense of belonging to an earlier global culture. I don't know. Working together is often bumpy. The German president of the EU Commission is Ursula von der Leyen: Why was she undemocratically chosen by heads of state over the proposed candidate (another German)? Because she speaks perfectly French, which is rare for Germans today. France rejects non-French speaking presidents of EU commission. Such national sensitivities are difficult to overcome and prevent a powerful central government.
Road signage: In theory true, but there are also reasons not to unify everything. Most countries replaced text on roadsigns by symbols whereever possible. European roadsigns, their iconography look almost the same since more than 70 years (comparision figures at end of page). The fonts differ and different background colours are used for signposts (green, blue, yellowish, white), doesn't matter. Ambiguities still exists with short text references, e.g. in France a reminder for a speed limit reads: "Rappel" (reminder), instead of round sign alone. Or "à droite", "à gauche" instead of arrows pointing right or left—nonsense. Greece (greek) and Bulgaria (cyrrilic) have bi-lingual signs and wouldn't do without their non-latin script.
But road construction rules differ greatly, e.g. safe design of freeways, intersections, junctions, town entrances, cycle paths. Scandinavians and Dutch are at least 30 years ahead of us; in Portugal they may don't understand what the effort is for. Road safety is extremely important in Scandinavia due to long winter nights and bad weather, less so in the Mediterranean. I'd like to keep "local variation" where there's no need to unify. But we should have federal control over air traffic, which we still don't have—not to speak of Air Policing (intercept non-communicating aircraft). But I mourn the former variety of car licence plates. Today they all look almost the same: Same dimensions, background and text color. At least the local fonts survived. Only micro nations (e.g. Liechtenstein, Monaco, Andorra) kept their exotic plates. With EU-type license plates, origin can only be recognized up close.
Scrooge McDuck wrote: When
)
One thing to keep in mind the Americans had pirates on their side and the British had to bring everything they wanted across the ocean which could take weeks or more depending on the winds, ie the Americans fought smart and when they inflicted enough casualties the British had to withdraw due to lack of manpower. The other thing the Americans did was to 'fight dirty' according to the 'rules of battle' at the time, ie they hid behind trees and rocks while the British moved forward in nice neat rows across open ground and were easy targets. Yes both sides used Indians but their numbers were so small that while they did have an effect it was only a minor one in the big picture.
The vast majority of American
)
The vast majority of American Citizens can't say why the Declaration of Independence was in 1776 and the Constitution adopted in 1787. I'm sure almost none of the extreme loud mouth partisans here have any clue.
As to roads, there is a national standards document, but it allows considerable variance for local conditions and even some whims. It is not law, but a guideline. Few dare deviate from it however because we are a litigious society and being able to point to a standard makes a good defense. Standardization is further enhanced as to get federal funds to maintain the road it must meet the standards. One obvious set of differences is hurricane resistance, another earthquake resistance. I believe that there are tiers based on event likelihood and good engineering practice. No one said this was going to be a two paragraph standard.