News Reforming the EU: A Scientific Perspective

[jack476]

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.

Right-wing extremism is a symptom of an underlying social problem. Economic frustration and stagnation in political progress prompt rebellion and radicalism, stirred by politicians who say that things used to be perfect in the past and that everything was fine until XYZ showed up. Left-wing radicalism occurs for similar reasons, but for whatever reason this form of radicalism has taken the reactionary form.

And it's not just Europe. That strain of reactionary, conservative, anti-establishment movement has also exploded in the US and was one of the main drivers of the rise of the Islamic State. Similar movements have also appeared in India and Japan.

Hopefully things will improve as the economy continues to recover from the recession. The absolute worst thing that could happen right now would be a failure of international cooperation as a result of nationalist tension.

 

[mheslep]

With a couple months to go, Brexit, or "Leave", is leading in the polls as of April. "Remain" has been trending down for several weeks.

 

[mheslep]

Persuasive documentary on Brexit (pro exit).

 

[nikkkom]

The growth of Euroscepticism is a clear indication that Brussels bureaucracy has grown way too large and it tries to regulate way too much.

If Brussels bureaucracy can be scaled back and some of its powers curtailed, EU will survive. The age-old problem is, how do you persuade or force bureaucracy to shrink? It's contrary to its natural tendency. "Bureaucracy grows to meet the needs of expanding bureaucracy".

 

[fresh_42]

The growth of Euroscepticism is a clear indication that Brussels bureaucracy has grown way too large and it tries to regulate way too much.

If Brussels bureaucracy can be scaled back and some of its powers curtailed, EU will survive. The age-old problem is, how do you persuade or force bureaucracy to shrink? It's contrary to its natural tendency. "Bureaucracy grows to meet the needs of expanding bureaucracy".

Yes. However, I well remember my history lessons. And not only those of the last century. Consider the last millennium! I'll take a large bureaucracy over the alternative without even thinking about it.

And whether you complain about Brussels or your related own capital doesn't really make a difference. The mocking itself won't change. Did you know that the famous regulation on cucumbers originated in the needs of haulage companies and their endeavor? It hasn't been Brussels!

I remember my first time I landed in Russia: I was literally happy and glad to be able to go there without carrying a gun. And I prefer dining in France over what my ancestors would probably have done, or the British, or the Swedes, or the Spaniards, or the the Russian or or or ...

Bureaucracy? What a deal! Just a little amount of money instead of sheer endless and senseless controversies.

 

[nikkkom]

Yes. However, I well remember my history lessons. And not only those of the last century. Consider the last millennium! I'll take a large bureaucracy over the alternative without even thinking about it.

How about a third alternative - a somewhat *smaller* bureaucracy?

 

[mheslep]

How is it that bureaucracy stops conflict? The USSR and Mao's China were the largest bureacracies ever seen, controlling every detail of society yet they killed a hundred million.

 

[nikkkom]

How is it that bureaucracy stops conflict?

Laws, police and courts are "bureaucracy" too. With total absence of any laws and "bureaucracy", each of us would need to be armed to the teeth and drive around on armored personnel carriers. Somalia style.

 

[fresh_42]

How is it that bureaucracy stops conflict? The USSR and Mao's China were the largest bureacracies ever seen, controlling every detail of society yet they killed a hundred million.

In case of Brussels it has several advantages: We all have a common ground to complain about. It forces our leaders to talk to each other. Brussels has a parliament representing all of us. It establishes common standards which we all have in similar ways already: why not unify them? Does it really make a big difference for a Scotsman whether Brussels or London puts regulations on him? At best will I can't imagine. As long as we are forced to solve problems commonly we are somehow sure that we do not solve our problems at the costs of others, like we did for centuries! Without that (bureaucratic) pressure we will sooner or later start to recover animosities which seemed to be forgotten. I don't trust us.

Considering real economy on this planet borders are already obsolete. It's a medieval concept. Brussels guarantees that we concentrate on common ground which is (across Europe) really great. Differences among the tribes of our nations are often greater than the differences among our nations as a whole. Does anybody really think it makes much of a difference whether to live in London, Paris, Rome, Prague or Frankfurt? It makes more of a difference whether you live in London or Essex!
The EU might be considered a monster as the Americans like to consider DC as a monster governing in their private life. What's the result? You need your birth certificate on public toilets in NC or TX but in CA it's fine without. You may smoke weed in CO or OR, but a few hundred miles away you would end up in jail for doing the exact same thing and so on.
No, it's definitely better to live under this European concept and bureaucracy called EU than it is without. Go voting (the EU parliament) instead of complaining and don't forget that it hasn't been that long that it wasn't possible at all. The price to be paid is nothing compared to the alternative. A short glimpse at all the national movements across Europe (+ Australia + US) which currently occur will give you a brief view on what the real monsters are, waiting to creep out of their dark holes. That is what really scares (the ...) me and not some civil servants in Brussels.

 

[nikkkom]

Brussels has a parliament representing all of us. It establishes common standards which we all have in similar ways already: why not unify them? Does it really make a big difference for a Scotsman whether Brussels or London puts regulations on him?

Yes, it does. It's easier to vote out a government in London than one in Brussels.

As long as we are forced to solve problems commonly we are somehow sure that we do not solve our problems at the costs of others, like we did for centuries! Without that (bureaucratic) pressure we will sooner or later start to recover animosities which seemed to be forgotten. I don't trust us.

Why do South Korea, Japan and US manage to not "recover animosities" without having a common Parliament?

The EU might be considered a monster as the Americans like to consider DC as a monster governing in their private life. What's the result? You need your birth certificate on public toilets in NC or TX but in CA it's fine without. You may smoke weed in CO or OR, but a few hundred miles away you would end up in jail for doing the exact same thing and so on.

It's not a bug, it's a feature. If one state in US enacts a legislation which turns out to be harmful for the society, it becomes noticeable when that state falls behind others, people and businesses start to move out, etc.

No, it's definitely better to live under this European concept and bureaucracy called EU than it is without.

You miss the point. People are not generally against cooperation in Europe. People are against *too much* enforced "cooperation" which starts to feel like EUSSR.

Please read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Qatada

UK wanted to deport a Jordanian national back to Jordan. Because of a certain piece of EU legislation, it took 11 years (!) and a special treaty between UK and Jordan (!) to make that happen. That's insanity.

 

[mheslep]

Laws, police and courts are "bureaucracy" too. With total absence of any laws and "bureaucracy", each of us would need to be armed to the teeth and drive around on armored personnel carriers. Somalia style.

I take your point, and I am no anarchist. The definition of bureacracy though does not include any and all government employees without regard to context; rather, it refers to a matter of degree, when most governmental decisions in a nation are carried out by government employees instead of elected officials. This is certainly the case with the EU leadership which is unelected by the public and largely unknown to them.

 

[rootone]

I'm British born but have spent much time living in other European countries.
Since I now only visit UK on occasions to see relatives the result will not much affect me personally.
However in my opinion the outcome for Britain of leaving EU would not be a happy one.
The main arguments coming from the leave side seem to assume that once out of the EU, the rest of the world and particular the old empire countries will be falling over themselves to get access to UK markets (pop 60m), while not being too concerned about the EU markets (pop about 450m with UK removed.)
... and of course a replica WW2 spitfire will be installed on every village green.

 

[fresh_42]

Yes, it does. It's easier to vote out a government in London than one in Brussels.

Which for the exact same reason could be used as an argument to hand over more rights to the EU parliament. Maybe it looks easier to vote in London but the results are the same: Some far away people regulate a Scotsman's life without really knowing the circumstances he lives in.

Why do South Korea, Japan and US manage to not "recover animosities" without having a common Parliament?

First of all we have more in common. Secondly it is simply not true. The Japanese haven't apologized for the Korean "comfort women" in WWII. There are animosities in east asia, and not only a few. Do you think the Chinese have forgotten Japanese occupation? The US doesn't have animosities? You're kidding. Ask them about Canadians, Latinos or especially Mexicans. And they still haven't overcome their race issues. In Texas there is even a segregation movement!

It's not a bug, it's a feature. If one state in US enacts a legislation which turns out to be harmful for the society, it becomes noticeable when that state falls behind others, people and businesses start to move out, etc.

Ok, might have been a poor comparison. I very much appreciate that British, French or German laws are basically the same. Makes life a lot easier. It isn't a feature to have different ones, it's nonsense. Again, our common ground should be big enough to have common regulations.
And whether you insist on your last call in the middle of the evening at a time at which Spaniards start to go out isn't really an issue we should bother about.

You miss the point. People are not generally against cooperation in Europe. People are against *too much* enforced "cooperation" which starts to feel like EUSSR.

You must definitely be younger than 30. This is big <censored>!
You sound like Jean Connery or the IRA without hearing it.

Please read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Qatada

UK wanted to deport a Jordanian national back to Jordan. Because of a certain piece of EU legislation, it took 11 years (!) and a special treaty between UK and Jordan (!) to make that happen. That's insanity.

I tried. What an unpleasant read.
I agree. But this again can as well be seen as a challenge to improve things rather than giving in.

I never said it's a perfect system. I simply remember we have tried the alternative for centuries and it definitely did not work. This was overall just horrible. Repair what's wrong instead of doing your own stuff. The latter will only change the set of persons affected. And the side effects are simply far too expensive.

 

[mheslep]

In case of Brussels it has several advantages: We all have a common ground to complain about. It forces our leaders to talk to each other. Brussels has a parliament representing all of us. It establishes common standards which we all have in similar ways already: why not unify them? Does it really make a big difference for a Scotsman whether Brussels or London puts regulations on him? At best will I can't imagine. As long as we are forced to solve problems commonly we are somehow sure that we do not solve our problems at the costs of others, like we did for centuries! Without that (bureaucratic) pressure we will sooner or later start to recover animosities which seemed to be forgotten. I don't trust us.

Considering real economy on this planet borders are already obsolete. It's a medieval concept. Brussels guarantees that we concentrate on common ground which is (across Europe) really great. Differences among the tribes of our nations are often greater than the differences among our nations as a whole. Does anybody really think it makes much of a difference whether to live in London, Paris, Rome, Prague or Frankfurt? It makes more of a difference whether you live in London or Essex!
The EU might be considered a monster as the Americans like to consider DC as a monster governing in their private life. What's the result? You need your birth certificate on public toilets in NC or TX but in CA it's fine without. You may smoke weed in CO or OR, but a few hundred miles away you would end up in jail for doing the exact same thing and so on.
No, it's definitely better to live under this European concept and bureaucracy called EU than it is without. Go voting (the EU parliament) instead of complaining and don't forget that it hasn't been that long that it wasn't possible at all. The price to be paid is nothing compared to the alternative. A short glimpse at all the national movements across Europe (+ Australia + US) which currently occur will give you a brief view on what the real monsters are, waiting to creep out of their dark holes. That is what really scares (the ...) me and not some civil servants in Brussels.

MEPs don't represent the public by deed but by word, as they are not allowed to submit legislation. Of course it makes a difference if one is regulated by someone nearer, speaking the same native tongue, rather than far away and unfamiliar with local circumstance, for reasons going back to Montesquieu. This is especially so if those responsible for the regulations can never be removed at the ballot box.

For notable examples of where a particular european residence makes a difference, see countries that *refused* to join the EU. See Switzerland with its high income, very free democracy, and unemployment half that of rest of europe. See Norway for a similar result. Likewise, notice that both of these countries compete quite well in the global economy with large exports, all without the blessing of EU bureaucrats.

There are good arguments that the EU is *causing* much of the nationalistic reaction politics, most recently via the import of a million or so middle eastern though the people never voted on their entry. In a system where voices are unheard and dismissed people react this way if history is any guide. Tell me, how is the argument you make different from those in early 1930s Germany: we need a central unifying authority with extraordinary powers to prevent yet another war, to get the economy headed in one direction, we need something to hold down the reactionaries (then it was the Bolsheviks).

Democracy deters war, not bureacracy.

 

[mheslep]

..
However in my opinion the outcome for Britain of leaving EU would not be a happy one.
The main arguments coming from the leave side seem to assume that once out of the EU, the rest of the world and particular the old empire countries will be falling over themselves to get access to UK markets (pop 60m), while not being too concerned about the EU markets (pop about 450m with UK removed.)
... and of course a replica WW2 spitfire will be installed on every village green.

If that documentary above is correct in it's figures, German auto exports to Britain alone are reason to keep trade ongoing without a second of downtime. IIRC, a third of the existing UK auto fleet is German made.

BTW, may I ask if you are associated with an EU NGO or other organization such as a university that is heavily funded by the EU, as most are?

 

[nikkkom]

> Yes, it does. It's easier to vote out a government in London than one in Brussels.

Which for the exact same reason could be used as an argument to hand over more rights to the EU parliament.

No, it does not, in case you do use the logic system which applies to this Universe.

> You miss the point. People are not generally against cooperation in Europe. People are against *too much* enforced "cooperation" which starts to feel like EUSSR.

You must definitely be younger than 30. This is big <censored>!
You sound like Jean Connery or the IRA without hearing it.

I'm 41.
If you can't stand people (gasp!) having opinions not matching yours, probably you can't meaningfully participate in political discussions.

 

[fresh_42]

Tell me, how is the argument you make different from those in early 1930s Germany: we need a central unifying authority with extraordinary powers to prevent yet another war, to get the economy headed in one direction, we need something to hold down the reactionaries (then it was the Bolsheviks).

You really think of Brussels as "an authority with extraordinary powers". Come on! I refuse to comment your insult here. Would be deleted anyway. Seems meanwhile to be a British hobby to me.

Democracy deters war, not bureacracy.

I agree. Therefore my stand is "more democracy" and not splitted ones. Bureaucracy is simply a necessity I don't bother too much about.
I have more experiences on local parliaments than most others here since I live in a federal system. I know about the pros and cons.
And again: I'm no fan of centralistic powers like in the UK, France or Spain. Let local be what local is. But on the other hand I don't mind whether Brussels forbid me to smoke in pubs or it's been done by three dozen parliaments each.

 

[fresh_42]

If you can't stand people (gasp!) having opinions not matching yours, probably you can't meaningfully participate in political discussions.

That is not what I meant to say and I apologize if you feel offended. I just wanted to emphasize (by rhetorical means) that a comparison EU - USSR is far beyond reality. I can't see EU acting like a dictatorship. Sorry, simply sounds like said by someone who doesn't know about all the repressions and injustices that occurred in the USSR. I can stand your opinion, can you stand mine?

 

[nikkkom]

I don't mind whether Brussels forbid me to smoke in pubs or it's been done by three dozen parliaments each.

You (deliberately?) ignore the point that as legislation changes, these new changes (even if made with best intentions in mind) can turn out to be *bad*.

If you have only one single legislative body issuing new rules, a series of bad decisions affect everyone, and they are not immediately obvious.
If you have many legislative bodies, you have a "Darwinian" system where bad decisions can be empirically detected by comparing the results. And also, if worst comes to worst, you can escape from a country which is going downhill because crazy people seized power (Venezuela), to a less insane one.

 

[fresh_42]

You (deliberately?) ignore the point ...

You (deliberately?) ignore ... that I've said "Let local be what local is."

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...

 

[Evo]

The thread is going off topic and becoming an argument instead. Thread closed.