News Reforming the EU: A Scientific Perspective

[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.

 

[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.