Reforming the EU: A Scientific Perspective

  • News
  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
In summary, this conversation seems to be about whether or not the EU should reform its ways in order to better appeal to the countries within it. The person writing this summary seems to be in favour of reform, but is concerned about the implications of reform on the stability of the EU as a whole.
  • #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,446
558
What do you guys think Cameron keeps on about a reformed EU but what is that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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?
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
fresh_42 said:
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.
 
  • #5
phinds said:
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.
 
  • #6
wolram said:
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.
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
wolram said:
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.
 
  • #9
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"
 
  • Like
Likes MikeMardis, mheslep, Tsu and 1 other person
  • #10
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?
 
  • Like
Likes lisab and Merlin3189
  • #11
phyzguy said:
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.
 
  • #13
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.
 
  • Like
Likes StatGuy2000 and fresh_42
  • #14
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.
 
  • Like
Likes HossamCFD and fresh_42
  • #15
lisab said:
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! :oldbiggrin:)
 
Last edited:
  • #16
jack476 said:
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.
 
  • #17
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.
 
  • #18
mheslep said:
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.
 
  • #19
jack476 said:
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.
 
  • #20
mheslep said:
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.

mheslep said:
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."
 
  • #21
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
wolram said:
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.
 
  • #23
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.
 
  • #24
HossamCFD said:
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.
 
  • #25
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
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #26
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! :oldbiggrin:
 
  • #27
mheslep said:
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.

mheslep said:
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.
 
  • #28
jack476 said:
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.
 
  • #29
mheslep said:
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.
 
  • #30
jack476 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
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.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #32
EU is like being part of physics forum. Why not stay! o0)
awesome here
 
  • #33
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 :)
 
  • #34
Rx7man said:
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.
 
  • #35
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
 
<h2>1. What is the current state of the EU and why is reform necessary?</h2><p>The EU is a political and economic union of 27 member states in Europe. It was formed after World War II with the goal of promoting peace and cooperation among European countries. However, over time, the EU has faced numerous challenges such as economic crises, migration issues, and political divisions. These challenges have highlighted the need for reform to make the EU more efficient, democratic, and responsive to the needs of its citizens.</p><h2>2. What are the main areas of the EU that need reform?</h2><p>There are several areas of the EU that require reform, including its decision-making processes, budgetary system, and institutional structure. The EU also needs to address issues such as social inequality, climate change, and the rise of populism. Additionally, there is a growing demand for more transparency and accountability within the EU institutions.</p><h2>3. How can scientific research contribute to the reform of the EU?</h2><p>Scientific research can provide valuable insights and evidence-based recommendations for reforming the EU. For example, studies on the impact of EU policies and programs can help identify areas for improvement. Additionally, scientific expertise can be used to develop more effective and sustainable solutions to the challenges facing the EU.</p><h2>4. What are the potential benefits of reforming the EU?</h2><p>If done effectively, reforming the EU can bring numerous benefits, including increased efficiency, transparency, and accountability. It can also lead to a more democratic and inclusive EU that better represents the interests of its citizens. Furthermore, reform can help the EU address current and future challenges, such as climate change and social inequality.</p><h2>5. What are some potential challenges to reforming the EU?</h2><p>Reforming the EU is a complex and challenging process that involves the agreement of all member states. Some potential challenges include differing opinions and priorities among member states, as well as resistance to change from established institutions and political leaders. Additionally, there may be financial and logistical barriers to implementing certain reforms. It is important to carefully consider and address these challenges in order to achieve successful reform.</p>

1. What is the current state of the EU and why is reform necessary?

The EU is a political and economic union of 27 member states in Europe. It was formed after World War II with the goal of promoting peace and cooperation among European countries. However, over time, the EU has faced numerous challenges such as economic crises, migration issues, and political divisions. These challenges have highlighted the need for reform to make the EU more efficient, democratic, and responsive to the needs of its citizens.

2. What are the main areas of the EU that need reform?

There are several areas of the EU that require reform, including its decision-making processes, budgetary system, and institutional structure. The EU also needs to address issues such as social inequality, climate change, and the rise of populism. Additionally, there is a growing demand for more transparency and accountability within the EU institutions.

3. How can scientific research contribute to the reform of the EU?

Scientific research can provide valuable insights and evidence-based recommendations for reforming the EU. For example, studies on the impact of EU policies and programs can help identify areas for improvement. Additionally, scientific expertise can be used to develop more effective and sustainable solutions to the challenges facing the EU.

4. What are the potential benefits of reforming the EU?

If done effectively, reforming the EU can bring numerous benefits, including increased efficiency, transparency, and accountability. It can also lead to a more democratic and inclusive EU that better represents the interests of its citizens. Furthermore, reform can help the EU address current and future challenges, such as climate change and social inequality.

5. What are some potential challenges to reforming the EU?

Reforming the EU is a complex and challenging process that involves the agreement of all member states. Some potential challenges include differing opinions and priorities among member states, as well as resistance to change from established institutions and political leaders. Additionally, there may be financial and logistical barriers to implementing certain reforms. It is important to carefully consider and address these challenges in order to achieve successful reform.

Similar threads

  • Thermodynamics
Replies
4
Views
846
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
838
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Back
Top