News Reforming the EU: A Scientific Perspective

[wolram]

What do you guys think Cameron keeps on about a reformed EU but what is that?

 

[phinds]

If you are asking other people for their opinion, don't you think it's appropriate to start out by saying what your opinion is?

 

[fresh_42]

Please vote "No"!

This cherry picking appears to me to be very unfair and single-sided. (And Thatcher already got very special conditions on payments.) I still remember my history classes and I do not want this bunch of single countries with hidden background alliances anymore. The more we stick together the better. Concentrate on your commonwealth and don't stop others from creating the future. The alternative will lead to pure horror.

 

[phinds]

Please vote "No"!

This cherry picking appears to me to be very unfair and single-sided. (And Thatcher already got very special conditions on payments.) I still remember my history classes and I do not want this bunch of single countries with hidden background alliances anymore. The more we stick together the better. Concentrate on your commonwealth and don't stop others from creating the future. The alternative will lead to pure horror.

You seem to be saying simultaneously "let's stick together" and "let's not stick together". Perhaps it's because I don't live in the EU but I can't follow at all whatever it is that you are talking about.

 

[fresh_42]

You seem to be saying simultaneously "let's stick together" and "let's not stick together". Perhaps it's because I don't live in the EU but I can't follow at all whatever it is that you are talking about.

The conditions the British negotiated are basically: Give us the free market and let us alone on any other issue. This I call cherry-picking and I want them to leave. The rest of us should stick together more and more which is not possible with the British onboard.
The rest I've said is about the various reasons that led to centuries of senseless wars between changing countries. The world wars only have been the latest and causes were multifarious. A lot was due to secret diplomacies. The EU is (until now) a good concept to avoid the mistakes that have been made in former times. I don't want it to fail.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

What do you guys think Cameron keeps on about a reformed EU but what is that?

I'm definitely in favour of staying in the EU but not in favour of keeping Cameron.

 

[wolram]

I think we should opt out, the reforms Cameron keep referring to have not been spelled out to us, we do not want any more immigration, our country is over populated all ready. And we want to have government for the English not for an EU.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I think we should opt out, the reforms Cameron keep referring to have not been spelled out to us, we do not want any more immigration, our country is over populated all ready. And we want to have government for the English not for an EU.

I agree with all that, but I think that if we "go it alone" it will create a "them versus us" situation in Europe.
At least we have so far been able to avoid the fundamental problems inherent in the single currency, as spectacularly demonstrated by Greece.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Speaking for all the Canadians, Australians, Americans, New Zealanders, Indians, Chinese and Swiss on PF, I say "No, we shouldn't stay in the EU"

 

[phyzguy]

The problems with the single currency are because the EU has monetary union without political union. It seems to me (I'm from the US) that the EU needs more integration, not less. How can you have monetary union when each country is free to set their own budget?

 

[lisab]

The problems with the single currency are because the EU has monetary union without political union. It seems to me (I'm from the US) that the EU needs more integration, not less. How can you have monetary union when each country is free to set their own budget?

We had a thread some time back on the Euro crisis. It's amazing to me that the system works at all (albeit I'm a straight-up noob on Economics).

And, as I recall, the "crisis" still has not been resolved.

 

[wolram]

Some departments in the EU are bananas see the regulations and why we think they are nuts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No._2257/94

 

[Jonathan Scott]

As with so many questions, it's not a matter of what's wrong with the current situation (which is a very long list and very exasperating) but rather whether changing would actually result in any overall improvement. The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill.

I'm seeing a disturbing trend towards more narrowly focused self-interest everywhere, illustrated for example by Donald Trump. Many of us grew up with the lessons of how we need to prevent unfairness and conflict by extending the natural human tendency to classify people into "us" and "them" so that as many as possible come into the "us" group, but it seems these lessons have gone out of fashion.

 

[jack476]

Stay in the EU, please. We don't need to be giving any more momentum to nationalism right now. The last 400 years have pretty decisively shown that Europe + nationalist sentiment = bad stuff.

 

[epenguin]

We had a thread some time back on the Euro crisis. It's amazing to me that the system works at all (albeit I'm a straight-up noob on Economics).

And, as I recall, the "crisis" still has not been resolved.

You do have a single currency in the USA. If I remember it was not all that easy in the first 20 years?

(At least European governments have not yet been caught forging Euro banknotes as I heard happened with dollars in some States! )

 

[mheslep]

Stay in the EU, please. We don't need to be giving any more momentum to nationalism right now. The last 400 years have pretty decisively shown that Europe + nationalist sentiment = bad stuff.

The recent rise of the nationalist parties and groups in Europe are directly related to the EU and it's actions. Nationalism is kept in check by trade, not remote central government. Europe does not require an EU for trade.

 

[mheslep]

The single currency works under a single government, the same government that is answerable for all the spending and taxing. Greece is the result of a single currency shared by governments not soley responsible for stability of the currency. Many observers predicted as much at the creation of the Euro.

 

[jack476]

The recent rise of the nationalist parties and groups in Europe are directly related to the EU and it's actions. Nationalism is kept in check by trade, not remote central government. Europe does not require an EU for trade.

But before you can have peaceful free trade you have to have willingness to cooperate and some kind of assurance of recourse. To that end, the EU doesn't directly solve the nationalism problem, but the status of the EU is sort of an indicator of the state of nationalism. To keep nationalism in check, we have to prevent it from accomplishing any of its policy goals in order to hinder its political legitimacy, necessary because (among other reasons) trade becomes difficult if cooperation deteriorates.

 

[mheslep]

But before you can have peaceful free trade you have to have willingness to cooperate and some kind of assurance of recourse.

Many independent nations enjoy cooperation and recourse, as did Europe for decades before the EU.

...the status of the EU is sort of an indicator of the state of nationalism. To keep nationalism in check, we have to prevent it from accomplishing any of its policy goals in order to hinder its political legitimacy, necessary because (among other reasons) trade becomes difficult if cooperation deteriorates.

Lately the EU is a reverse indicator, if anything. Remote governments don't prevent nationalism, trade and local authority responsible to voters does. Speech codes and remote governments only make it worse.

 

[jack476]

Many independent nations enjoy cooperation and recourse, as did Europe for decades before the EU.

The difference is that those countries (China, USA, India, etc) are typically much larger economically and industrially. If a tiny little country like, say, Finland, tried to go it alone in the geopolitical economy then they would not stand a chance.

Remote governments don't prevent nationalism, trade and local authority responsible to voters does. Speech codes and remote governments only make it worse.

Wouldn't that apply to any form of government though? After all, the US Federal government is more "remote" than state governments, which are more remote than county and city governments, but we still have a "remote" federal government because it turns out (after the US tried the Articles of Confederation and nearly became a failed state) it's better in many ways to have a central authority than to not have one. All government is necessarily "remote". The world would not be a better place right now if everyone decided "I'm a special snowflake because of where I happened to be born therefore different rules should apply to me than to everyone else."

 

[mheslep]

Norway, Switzerland, and several others European countries are not in the EU, with similar or higher per capita GDP compared to the US. They are however in the EFTA.

With regard to the size of government, see Montesquieu as cited by Brutus in the mostly forgotten anti -federalist

baron de Montesquieu, spirit of laws, chap. xvi. vol. I [book VIII]. "It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected."

Madison won the argument in federalist 10 when the US was to be 13 states. My guess, if there had been an attempt to start a continent sized country with 50 states the federalists would be the forgotten authors.

 

[Hornbein]

What do you guys think Cameron keeps on about a reformed EU but what is that?

To have even a glimmer of an opinion I'd have to know what the rights and responsibilities of EU member nations are. I don't.

I thought the EU was only about money, but was proved wrong when they passed that non-binding Snowden resolution.

 

[HossamCFD]

There's an argument that in case of a 'Brexit', Scotland might attempt another referendum in order to break from the UK and remain in the EU. Seeing how close the 2014 Scottish independence campaign came, and how well the SNP performed in the 2015 general elections, this extra incentive might prove decisive.

The dichotomy between England and Scotland regarding the Brexit is attested in many opinion polls:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opini..._Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

I'd hate to see Scotland going it alone.

 

[mheslep]

There's an argument that in case of a 'Brexit', Scotland might attempt another referendum in order to break from the UK and remain in the EU. Seeing how close the 2014 Scottish independence campaign came, and how well the SNP performed in the 2015 general elections, this extra incentive might prove decisive.

The dichotomy between England and Scotland regarding the Brexit is attested in many opinion polls:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opini..._Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

I'd hate to see Scotland going it alone.

Similarly, given the concentration of UK EU attachment in Scotland, should Scotland leave first leave the UK for some reason a Brexit is guranteed.

 

[Tosh5457]

I think the best for the UK would be to get out of the EU and stay in EFTA, like Norway, so it would still benefit from free movement of people, which makes the UK receive many educated people from all over Europe to work, and benefit from free trade without barriers. At the same time, it would get more control over fishing, industry and the financial sector. Particularly on finance, EU is closing in on banking practices, to get more control over capital movements and tax evasion, and the UK would be better to stay out of this to keep being a financial hub.

An interesting read on the topic: http://www.theweek.co.uk/eu-referendum

 

[epenguin]

baron de Montesquieu, spirit of laws, chap. xvi. vol. I [book VIII]. "It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected."

Thank you mheslep for that reminder quote. It Will be useful to me in my debates elsewhere.

'Charismatic leader' is certainly not a phrase that comes to mind in connection with any of the big bugs of The European institutions, such as van Rompuy, Junckers or Tusk. Often people explicitly complain of their greyness - and ready-made phrases like thefacelessbureaucratsofBrussels are very often heard.

At a suitable opportunity -and there will be very many - I may now be inspired to suggest to complainants that this coloration may be a virtue!

 

[jack476]

Norway, Switzerland, and several others European countries are not in the EU, with similar or higher per capita GDP compared to the US. They are however in the EFTA.

The EFTA still depends on the EU though. The EFTA countries participate in EU development programs, they use the open borders provided by the EU, and of the EFTA countries only Switzerland is not a member of the EEA and even they still have to be subject to EU trade regulations. If the EFTA was as large as the EU, it would end up doing exactly the same thing because centralization of authority is the natural consequence of that level of multilateral cooperation.

Madison won the argument in federalist 10 when the US was to be 13 states. My guess, if there had been an attempt to start a continent sized country with 50 states the federalists would be the forgotten authors.

The objection Montesquieu makes would apply to any system of government. Any government besides a pure democracy (which could never happen because it would eventually give way to factionalism and therefore to single-party autocracy) is going to have a small number of individuals making laws for a large number of people.

But in a world where telecommunication is possible and you can travel thousands of miles by air in the space of only a few hours, those objections are basically reduced to non-issues.

 

[mheslep]

The objection Montesquieu makes would apply to any system of government. Any government besides a pure democracy (which could never happen because it would eventually give way to factionalism and therefore to single-party autocracy) is going to have a small number of individuals making laws for a large number of people.

But in a world where telecommunication is possible and you can travel thousands of miles by air in the space of only a few hours, those objections are basically reduced to non-issues.

Government other than republican democracy is not the issue, size is the issue.

I don't know that telecom and air travel resolve the problems Montesquieu describe in the least. Large republic leading to men of large fortunes and then to hubris? Public good sacrificed to a thousand views? Modern communications likely make it worse in my view, giving politicians a 24/7 one way bullhorn reaching every citizen.

 

[jack476]

Government other than republican democracy is not the issue, size is the issue.

I don't know that telecom and air travel resolve the problems Montesquieu describe in the least.

Montesquieu claims that the United States should not seek to be a republic because the only system of government that works effectively for countries that are large in both physical size and population is an authoritarian government.

Basically, people will be geographically isolated, and if they don't move much or interact with people from other areas then those groups of people will become socially isolated. That results in a breakdown of the national identity and therefore you have a potential foothold for seditious sentiment. But because those people advocating for sedition might well have voted for it legally, the government's hands will be tied in taking action to prevent rebellion. It's one of the most fundamental classical objections to democracy that you'll see in Enlightenment-era political thought.

Travel and telecommunications prevent this risk because they prevent geographical isolation from leading to social isolation. Montesquieu's objection to a large republic is based on 18th-century society. We do not currently live in the 18th century, so it is not as valid today.

Large republic leading to men of large fortunes and then to hubris? Public good sacrificed to a thousand views?

"Men of large fortunes" could easily come to exist in small republics. In fact, the trends generally show that as countries' economies become larger, wealth inequality actually tends to improve. In the US it might be unfair the way things are stacked in favor of our richest citizens, but the situation here is far better than it is in many less-developed economies.

As for "public good sacrificed to a thousand views", that is inevitable in any form of government. There are going to be fewer decision makers than people who will be effected by those decisions.

Modern communications likely make it worse in my view, giving politicians a 24/7 one way bullhorn reaching every citizen.

But individual citizens also have the ability to communicate with each other just as easily. That could end up making it harder for politicians to brainwash citizens because it can also promote the free exchange of ideas.

 

[mheslep]

Montesquieu claims that the United States should not seek to be a republic...

No, he died in 1755. He had nothing against republics per se.

 

[Rx7man]

OK speaking as a Swiss that's lived in Canada for most of my life..
Switzerland isn't in the EU because of a direct democracy guaranteed by it's constitution... The members of the government would long ago have joined the EU, hook, line, and sinker but the people voted it down.

I think the biggest problem with large countries is that you're bound to have dissenting views based on geography.. rural vs urban areas in particular, and depending on what the majority of the country is, some VAST areas of the country are completely unrepresented in government.. Perhaps an example of that is the BLM with the Cliveden Bundy fiasco... though perhaps not the best one.. it shows a lot of laws being made by people who aren't required to live by them... It's a fundamental problem when one group of people tell another group of people how to live.

 

[jw6661]

EU is like being part of physics forum. Why not stay!
awesome here

 

[Rx7man]

but it wouldn't be so awesome if the mods here told you how to live every aspect of your life ;) No disrespect to the mods, I just don't think you know what's best for me :)

 

[Hornbein]

The members of the government would long ago have joined the EU, hook, line, and sinker but the people voted it down.

So why did that happen? We in the US hear only bad news about other countries.

 

[mheslep]

Tim Montgomerie, Times columnist, and recent defector from the conservative party over EU issues:

MARGARET THATCHER predicted that it would end tears. She described "the drive to create a European superstate" as "perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era." The late British prime minister knew the lesson of the past: When politicians try to impose grand designs on people's of different histories, languages and cultural allegiances, the edifice totters and collapses.

Points:

• EU share of world market declining fast, twice as fast as American share
• Youth employment in Greece 49%, Spain 46%, Italy 38%
• EU didn't stabilize Europe, 250K US troops in W Germany did.
• Trade prosperity came from European Coal and Steel Community, 1952, Eunopened Economic Community 1957. Maastricht was 1993.
• Succesful single currency impossible without a fiscal union, ie unified taxing and spending.
• Outside EU Britain can form it's own free trade agreements
• Some 65% of UK laws since 93 bare mark of EU
• Scotland may leave UK
• International business may be scared off for a time.

Paywalled:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-better-britain-outside-the-eu-1455917425

 

[Rx7man]

So why did that happen? We in the US hear only bad news about other countries.

Anyone in Switzerland can form a petition (I think they need 10,000 signatures), and submit it.. at which point the federal council is required to put it to a referendum, and abide by the results of it.
I think the US (Canada, and many other countries too) could use a more direct form of government... The current method where you elect some talking head who promises all sorts of stuff and has no obligation to fulfill any of them, and can pass pretty much any law regardless of what the majority of people think of it, is just NOT A DEMOCRACY.

I think Winston Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others we've tried"... I don't think democracy is the problem, but rather a poor implementation of it.. It's like blaming computers in general for incorrect output when it's the program that has a bug.

 

[Hornbein]

Anyone in Switzerland can form a petition

What I wanted to know is, why don't they want to join the EU?

 

[Rx7man]

I think they want to be able to keep control of the laws being passed, and as soon as they just get one vote in a bigger body, and are force to abide by what the larger body (the EU of course) decides, they may not be getting what they want.

 

[mheslep]

Anyone in Switzerland can form a petition (I think they need 10,000 signatures), and submit it.. at which point the federal council is required to put it to a referendum, and abide by the results of it.
I think the US (Canada, and many other countries too) could use a more direct form of government... The current method where you elect some talking head who promises all sorts of stuff and has no obligation to fulfill any of them, and can pass pretty much any law regardless of what the majority of people think of it, is just NOT A DEMOCRACY.

I think Winston Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others we've tried"... I don't think democracy is the problem, but rather a poor implementation of it.. It's like blaming computers in general for incorrect output when it's the program that has a bug.

A referendum works in Switzerland because it's population is around 8 million, a bit bigger than my US state. Several US states do hold direct referenda. They would be disaster on a scale of 310 million across a continent. Churchill had in mind *republican* democracy when he made that statement, which is what Britain has been for several centuries.

 

[jack476]

No, he died in 1755. He had nothing against republics per se.

Did you read the link you posted? He was openly critical of republican government.

 

[jack476]

"MARGARET THATCHER predicted that it would end tears."

And as we all know, Margaret Thatcher and the WSJ are just paragons of unbiased reasoning.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Anyone in Switzerland can form a petition (I think they need 10,000 signatures), and submit it.. at which point the federal council is required to put it to a referendum, and abide by the results of it.

True. And in 2009 Switzerland voted to ban new construction of minarets. (57.5% and 22 of 26 cantons) This surely would not have been allowed to stand if Switzerland were a member of the EU. So there is a tension between EU membership and direct democracy.

 

[mheslep]

Did you read the link you posted? He was openly critical of republican government.

No, neither Brutus nor Montesquieu who he references opposed democratic republican govt. Why would he? To go back to monarchy which had jusr been thrown off in war? Take another look. All the thirteen American states at the time, hung loosely together under the Articles of Confederation, already *were* republican governments. The question at hand was whether or not federalize them all into one large republican and federal govt. The federalists won.

 

[Rx7man]

True. And in 2009 Switzerland voted to ban new construction of minarets. (57.5% and 22 of 26 cantons) This surely would not have been allowed to stand if Switzerland were a member of the EU. So there is a tension between EU membership and direct democracy.

I had that very same example in mind but wasn't going to bring it up!

 

[MikeMardis]

I'm no expert on the EU, but from what I understand the EU is run by officials who were not elected by the people. They were appointed, and from what I understand they are pretty much political hacks who could not get elected in their own countries.

If the US serves as any kind of a model it should demonstrate that large government is not the answer. However with Europe's socialist inclination, layering on yet another bureaucracy at the EU level might be just what they need.

Physical size is unimportant is modern times. Distance was only an issue when the fastest form of communication was the horse.

The real problem in England is not administrative (EU membership) or financial (Euro and EU trade agreements). The real problem is demographic. This is true for all of Europe, but especially true in the west. America was never a homogeneous country. We were always a melting pot. But European countries always were pretty much unique within each country's individual borders. That's what makes Europe a cool place to live and to visit. That's going away, however.
First was the universal use of English across borders followed by the insidious advance of English and American culture.
Second was the adoption of the Euro.
Third was the EU government forced on the countries in spite of France's and Holland's failure of ratification.
The forth is the final stake in Europe's heart. The not so gradual influx of Middle Easterners. They are doing to Europe what the Hispanics have done to the US. It's not all bad for the US, given our melting pot history, but that same cultural influx will irreversibly change Europe from what it is today, into yet another melting pot like the US always has been.

We have Taco Bells on every corner. Europe will have Falafel Houses.

 

[jack476]

I'm no expert on the EU, but from what I understand the EU is run by officials who were not elected by the people. They were appointed, and from what I understand they are pretty much political hacks who could not get elected in their own countries.

The EU Parliament is elected directly by the Europeans, and the Parliament appoints officials (just like how it works in the States).

Of course, even here a great number of the people who get appointed to agency positions are hacks would ideally never even be considered for the position. For instance, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology contains Paul Broun (openly young-Earth creationist, global warming denier) and Todd Akin (the guy who made the creepy "legitimate rape" gaffe in the run up to the 2012 elections). No system's perfect, I guess.

And no one was really forced to join. In practice the EU ultimately behaves more like a treaty than a governmental body. You can refuse to join or opt out, but you only get the benefits of being an EU member state if you join.

 

[Johninch]

And no one was really forced to join. In practice the EU ultimately behaves more like a treaty than a governmental body. You can refuse to join or opt out, but you only get the benefits of being an EU member state if you join.

Yes, and what are the benefits – that is the question. The whole exercise has been started and is being run by academic dreamers and career bureaucrats in Brussels. They started with a common market, which is a great idea and is why the UK joined. Since then, they have extended it with a common currency, free movement of people (not only labor), an avalanche of regulation and subsidies for the inefficient. Next come common laws, taxation, defense and foreign policy. All on the basis on one vote per country with 28 members plus Brussels. The mind boggles.

And the question is should the UK stay in? Well yes if the British don’t want to remain independent. In my opinion, the best solution for the UK is to leave on amicable terms with a Free Trade Agreement such as the EU is negotiating with the US and with Canada. My forecast is that the EU will shrink due to the departure of certain non-performing members, some of whom are only in it for the subsidies.

If the remaining members want to form a USE (under the domination of Germany) good luck to them. It could be a force to be reckoned with. I would recommend the UK to retire to the sidelines and see how the EU develops. Joining later, or some kind of alliance, should be possible.

And what is a reformed EU as the OP asked? This question has to be answered by all 28 members plus Brussels and in particular by Germany, not by the UK. Any single reform measure is worse than pulling teeth without anesthetic.

 

[mheslep]

The EU Parliament is elected directly by the Europeans, and the Parliament appoints officials (just like how it works in the States).

President of the E. Council (Tusk) is appointed by the E. Council. President of the E. Commission (Juncker) is appointed by the E. Parliament. The EU Presidency rotates among countries regardless of how unpopular or inept the government of those countries may be in view of the other countries.

Not like in the states.

 

[Sophia]

I haven't read whole tread but I would like to know your opinion on rise of right extremism/neo-nazism/fascism in the EU.
Yesterday, 25% of first time voters (aged 18-22) voted for a neo-nazi party of Marian Kotleba http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35739551
"Kotleba had "liberated" the town hall by taking down the flag of the European Union. He despises both the EU and Nato, describing that organisation as "terrorist"."
Slovakia will take the presidency over the EU on July 1st this year.
There are extreme right parties in Greece, Germany, Hungary. What is going to happen if the EU is filled with immigrants and these parties will gain popularity among Europeans? I can't imagine where will this lead.

 

[mheslep]

Slovakia will take the presidency over the EU on July 1st this year.

This dysfunctional selection process for the Presidency seems to be far more important than a 1/4 share neo-nazi of a 18-22 you in Slovakia.