> I believe this problem exists a little bit in Europe where so many believe the EU = Europe, they use the terms interchangeably.
I'm genuinely curious, in what sense EU = Europe is wrong? Granted, not all European countries are members of EU, but EU is a big block with several significant majorities among their constituents - a big population, economy, living style, culture, history, especially if UK could be included.
Why it's significantly wrong to approximate Europe as EU?
When I lived in France, I had a buddy doing his PhD in French history. He was from Hong Kong. The difference between him and a Chinese mainlander is at species level. The people who grew up in the large mainland cities are educated, writing code for the phones discussed in this thread, and architecting skyscrapers - they speak multiple languages and wear suits. The ex-farmers in those cities poop in the middle of the street, out in the open. others then pump that poop out of the sewers, boil it, and use the floating oil on top to cook with and sell to restaurant.
I would agree that Europe is more diverse that China. Eastern Europe + Russia is not more diverse than China. Neither is Western Europe + Iceland. And China is 10 times more diverse than the states.
source: Russian born, US raised. Also lived in Spain, France, Japan. Been to Every EU and European country, and ~80 countries total. Wife is Chinese, not from the mainland.
> The difference between him and a Chinese mainlander is at species level.
In computer terms, their hardware (race) is essentially identical in capability, disregarding minor individual defects. At the software level (culture) there is tremendous variance.
I often wonder what percentage of these disagreements are because of a misunderstanding of what level of the system is being discussed &/or that fact that substantial numbers of people don't/can't differentiate between race & culture.
Well ... a completely unelected Executive making laws for one. A completely unresponsive government - they do make some neat laws, but they are fully elitist, they have a total disdain for anything populist.
A system wherein there is 'no way out' i.e. they will punish anyone who leave (i.e. Brexit).
Have a look at Junkers statements regarding the Treaty of Lisbon referendums. Those words should have sparked a revolution, and he should have been jailed long ago.
If there were alternative systems to the EU, for example, a trading block that was powerful enough to counter the EU i.e. UK, Norway, Switzerland ... then people would see that they don't have to be 'pro EU' to be 'pro European' and there would be alternatives.
The EU is one country away from having to face this, because Norway, Switzerland and UK are not quite strong enough, but with one more ... then we'd see some kind of alternative.
There would be 'competitive federalization' models and people would then have choice.
Right now, it's a dictatorship of the elite, and there's no way at all to get the Executive branch to budge on any issues.
Even literally voting 'no' on the Treaty of Lisbon was not enough. You can literally vote them down and they will march forward with their plan.
While many of the objections you list resonate widely (even though I personally don't share most of them), I would also point out the obvious - that for all of its problems, it is because of the conscious, organized (and yes, largely elite-driven) effort to integrate European countries in a framework of shared interests that eventually became the EU that the centuries long practice of constant, bloody conflict that culminated in WW2 was finally broken. This was an explicit aim articulated by all sides after the war and in that aim the EU has been extraordinarily successful.
That is not to say the EU isn't in a deep, existential crisis, because in many ways it is. I would simply caution against throwing out the baby with the bathwater in this case, because the fundamental achievement of the EU is something far more important than overly disconnected bureaucrats with a penchant for arbitrary regulation.
It was really the EEC that has created this environment - not the EU as we know it, i.e. Treaty of Lisbon.
So you're arguing on my behalf: an 'EEC-like' Union would be very popular all around, and as you point out yourself 'helps with stability'.
A full on political union I suggest is the opposite of stability.
I think the EU should be 'thrown out' only because it cannot be reformed, but that a set of treaties could preserve the best parts of it - particularly those issues related to trade, some degree of tax harmonization and the ability to create some EU-level policies or regulations.
It's sad frankly because the EU is actually 'mostly good' - but it has existential flaws.
> A full on political union I suggest is the opposite of stability.
That really depends on the countries involved and the form of the union. Even in your version of events, with a reversion to an EEC-like state, I expect we would eventually see closer political union between France, Germany, the Benelux countries and whoever else wanted to join.
You also need to figure out what to do about the Eurozone. You cannot indefinitely sustain a monetary union without closer fiscal integration, which I assume you oppose, but dissolving it has its own issues both in the short and long term (there's a reason it was created in the first place, and that reason is not solely to facilitate closer political integration - even though that was indeed a goal).
It's not 'scary'. The term Europe has become a metonym for the EU[1]. In the media and in public discourse.
The EU parliament is elected and have the final say on laws. While I agree it's way too bureaucratic, it's still a voluntary club and there are check and balances.
The simple fact is that the EU is a remarkable achievement. That Europe could emerge from the smouldering tribal ruins of the early 20th century and build a continent-wide union of prosperity and peace is incredible. It ain't perfect but it also ain't the boogyman some morons make it out to be.
+ The EU Parliament has very little influence on law making in the EU.
They do not create, write or formulate law - they have only the ability to reject it. Yes - they can work with the Executive to evolve legislation, however in practice, this is not really the case with most legislation. I'd argue that individual nations, via the Council etc. have more influence than Parliament.
Once again: the EU Executive is totally unelected, and fundamentally unnacountable.
2) The EU - post Treaty of Lisbon - is not a 'remarkable thing' - it's a failing system. From 1950-2000 it was more or less an economic Union, less so a political one.
Surely, European nations coming together post WW2 is 'remarkable' - but much of that is simply the 'new world order' , and of course the EEC.
Most European nations would be happy to participate in an EEC-like union of some kind - which was the basis of the 'remarkable era' that you describe.
Put another way: if Europe was right now, in a fully EEC-like Union, much like NAFTA, with visa-free travel, easy work visas, relatively frictionless borders, and some level of political cooperation - would Europeans vote to enact a political union? (Especially one in which the laws were made by an unelected group?) the answer would be a resounding 'No'.
The number of shape-shifting arguments that pro-EU folks have to get into to side step the democratic illegitimacy of the Executive is utterly astonishing.
Nobody seems to be able to provide a basic, decent argument for why in fact those who make the laws in Europe are not elected.
Most political leaders have to bend with the political wind, that's usually a good thing. Jean-Claude Junker et. al. do not care one bit what Europeans think, because they don't have to.
> Once again: the EU Executive is totally unelected, and fundamentally unnacountable.
So, presumably you're talking about the Commission here, right? So, the EU structure is pretty weird, and I would agree with you that a much more democratic structure is possible and indeed preferable.
But it's not an unelected executive. It's an executive entirely controlled by the Council of Ministers. They are the people who really don't want more EU-level democracy (like a parliament which can enact laws), because it weakens their power as national governments.
Instead, they argue about stuff for years in Council, they win loads of concessions, and then they go home and blame "Europe" for the decisions which they (claim to) disagree with. (Are you here, Mr Cameron?)
Like the EU tend to do a good job of acting like they're evil, but it tends to come from the wildly divergent interests of the states, the commission and the parliament.
A lot of the real nastiness got exposed by the financial crises, and it's a terrible shame that we don't have eurobonds for financing capital investment across the EU, but again, that's not because the EU are "evil", it's because the Germans won't let it happen (the French wanted it desperately).
I think what I dislike the most about Brexit, is that it distorts the EU balance of power. Britain often acted as a swing state between France and Germany, and without that influence, things are going to get strange.
> Put another way: if Europe was right now, in a fully EEC-like Union, much like NAFTA, with visa-free travel, easy work visas, relatively frictionless borders, and some level of political cooperation - would Europeans vote to enact a political union? (Especially one in which the laws were made by an unelected group?) the answer would be a resounding 'No'.
They voted to create the EU in the first place, which is why the EU exists. They can vote to leave the EU, and one country has. But most countries haven't, and won't.
None of what you wrote says EU can't be seen as an equivavalent for Europe. Original poster was just arguing since many countries are part of EU, it's okay to do so - which is not unreasonable.
To comment on your statements, the EU certainly united Europe more then anything in the past has achieved. At the same time it offers a scapegoat that nationalists can use to further their agenda- and some fall for that.
No, it's scary that intelligent people accept not having an elected body which formulates the law of the land. And scary that anyone who questions that is accused of falling for 'propaganda'.
> A system wherein there is 'no way out' i.e. they will punish anyone who leave (i.e. Brexit).
Cry me a river. The EU has been nothing but patient with the clusterf*ck that has been UK's leadership trying to both leave the EU and take all it can from the EU, and actually due to pure incompetence, doing neither.
Do you want to know what punishment for leaving a union really is? You should maybe ask the south and the confederates how their secession went down.
> ... a completely unelected Executive making laws for one. A completely unresponsive government - they do make some neat laws, but they are fully elitist, they have a total disdain for anything populist.
You mean like a QUEEN?
Sometimes is almost too sad the level of pro-brexit "arguments" thrown around.
There is no system in the world where all the decisions are made by "elected executives". There is nothing more elitist than a monarchy.
You've crossed into incivility and flamewar as well. Tedious, lengthy spats like this are definitely not interesting by the standards of this site, so please don't.
Continuing to break the site guidelines like this is going to get you banned here. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and using the site as intended from now on?
You might also find these other links helpful for getting a clearer idea of the spirit of the site:
I'm genuinely curious, in what sense EU = Europe is wrong? Granted, not all European countries are members of EU, but EU is a big block with several significant majorities among their constituents - a big population, economy, living style, culture, history, especially if UK could be included.
Why it's significantly wrong to approximate Europe as EU?