- #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?
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 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.
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.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.
I'm definitely in favour of staying in the EU but not in favour of keeping Cameron.wolram said:What do you guys think Cameron keeps on about a reformed EU but what is that?
I agree with all that, but I think that if we "go it alone" it will create a "them versus us" situation in Europe.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.
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).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?
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.
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.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.
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.
Many independent nations enjoy cooperation and recourse, as did Europe for decades before the EU.jack476 said:But before you can have peaceful free trade you have to have willingness to cooperate and some kind of assurance of recourse.
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....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 said:Many independent nations enjoy cooperation and recourse, as did Europe for decades before the EU.
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.
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."
wolram said:What do you guys think Cameron keeps on about a reformed EU but what is that?
Similarly, given the concentration of UK EU attachment in Scotland, should Scotland leave first leave the UK for some reason a Brexit is guranteed.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.
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.
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.
Government other than republican democracy is not the issue, size is the issue.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.
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.
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.
No, he died in 1755. He had nothing against republics per se.jack476 said:Montesquieu claims that the United States should not seek to be a republic...
Rx7man said:The members of the government would long ago have joined the EU, hook, line, and sinker but the people voted it down.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.