> You got to admit that the EU at least has the courage to take some controversial measures in the best interest of their people.
Do you think it's a coincidence they get such a bad press?
Do you think it's a coincidence they get such a bad press?
It also doesn’t help that people want to label everyone so much to fit into just two categories. Feinstein (D-CA) is very pro-surveillance while some of the party (in congress) believes otherwise. Romney (R-UT) voted to convict Trump while every other Republican voted to acquit.
I’ll admit it is a bit hypocritical of me to lump all Republicans together, so I’ll clarify with: it’s where the party (in congress) seems to be heading (or already is). Obviously not all Republicans support that idea.
The obstacle to change in this country is not the Republican party, but Democrats who use them as an excuse to mask their similar, steadfast allegiance to business interests at the expense of everyone besides white collar workers.
It’s funny how federal government employees got paid parental leave though, but no legislation for non government employees was brought to the floor.
The only reason California can get away with the worker protections it has is because of its uniquely favorable weather, geography, productive land, and other resources.
No state can offer taxpayer funded healthcare, because then the people receiving more from healthcare than paying in will start to increase and the people paying in more than they receive will start to leave. It's the same problem for pretty much all other minimum standards of living, and the same one that exists between people in cheaper US states complaining about China and Mexico taking all their jobs.
Housing and healthcare are more difficult problems, but ones that have, again, been solved in just about every other developed country, including many with smaller economies than that of California. Hypothetical capital flight is just another among a litany of excuses used to justify their failure.
Is it hypothetical that a business that a retail business offers their employees lavish benefits and sells commodity products will be put out of business by lower prices from Walmart/Target/Amazon/Best Buy/etc?
Both of the above examples have happened, and capital flight is real. A few countries with better safety nets, who don't have a comparable emigration situation like in the US, does not mean that one of the two parties in the US is not trying at least a little bit.
None of your examples are headquartered in California, nor would any of these companies stop operating in the most populous state in the US with its largest economy were worker protections put in place.
>Is it hypothetical that manufacturing facilities relocated to China to be able to sell products at cheaper prices than their competitors?
The hollowing out of the industrial core was a bipartisan decision made in the 1990s with full support of Democrats, so its a bit rich to say "if we don't let them treat people bad, they'll make it even worse than we already helped them make it." The same power that them globalize manufacturing can force its return to the U.S. Again, every other developed country with a strong industrial base engages in this kind of protectionism for strategic and national security reasons. Germany is again, here, a salient example.
>Does not mean that one of the two parties in the US is not trying at least a little bit.
You keep insisting this without providing evidence of its reality. What major worker protections have been advanced and put into law by Democrats since the Obama presidency?
The argument isn’t that they would stop operating, but that they would experience less growth or maybe even contraction from people or businesses moving away due to higher costs (and taxes).
> The hollowing out of the industrial core was a bipartisan decision made in the 1990s with full support of Democrats, so its a bit rich to say "if we don't let them treat people bad, they'll make it even worse than we already helped them make it." The same power that them globalize manufacturing can force its return to the U.S. Again, every other developed country with a strong industrial base engages in this kind of protectionism for strategic and national security reasons. Germany is again, here, a salient example.
I didn’t write “if we don't let them treat people bad, they'll make it even worse than we already helped them make it that.” My example was intended to show that capital does go to wherever it’s cheapest, whether it be labor costs, lack of environmental regulations, etc.
> You keep insisting this without providing evidence of its reality. What major worker protections have been advanced and put into law by Democrats since the Obama presidency?
The proof is that the Democratic states on the west and northeast coasts and Illinois have passed laws requiring mandatory sick days, family leave acts, higher minimum wages, better unemployment benefits, etc. (including since Obama, even though that’s irrelevant).
Just because Democrats in the federal legislature have to play a different game doesn’t mean the state level ones aren’t able to get anything done.
Lest we get off track, if you go back to the beginning of this discussion, my contention is that Democrats have done a better job enacting legislation to protect workers, especially lower income workers, than Republicans. The proof is all the states that have better worker protections, did it with Democrat legislatures. What happens on the federal level may or may not matter, but Democrats haven’t had solid control of Congress for a long time, and with the little control they did, they managed to pass ACA, which is still at least something for poorer people, especially workers, and which Republicans continue to fight.
In fact, since Clinton took the Democratic party in a Neo-liberal direction (and made Reagan's dream of NAFTA a reality, "reformed" welfare, and the Glass-Steagall deregulation) I'm under the impression we have two such parties.
The fact is that you get to vote for your MEP if you choose to, and they in turn for the commission. It's weird that on the one hand people say the EU "[does] whatever they please and there is no real input from anyone" and on the other have no idea about the EU parliamentary process. It is what you make it.
The EU isn't perfect, but I'm always surprised by those in EU countries who think that it would be in their long-term interests to forge a path alone in a bi-polar geopolitical sphere dominated by the US and China, rather than club together with their EU neighbours and have a voice on the world stage.
Bit like say New York voting for Mr Happy as President and the country all votes for Mr Sad who has candidates in every state apart from New York. Now in that instance the people of New York's democratic say be kinda futile say in who runs the country as they had no chance. THAT is exactly how MEP voting choice was in some EU member countries that didn't have any EPP representation, say or choice and not a single EPP MEP voted for and yet it is the EPP that runs the EU.
Yes the EU isn't perfect but when they can't even sort out their own accounts and get them signed off year upon year, that's not a good sign of leadership or credibility. Heck even they admit they need to reform, which is sad as they didn't admit that until after the whole UK interdependence vote and that vote only came about as the UK leadership went to the EU for reforms and got palmed off with some tokens. Ironically had the EU even bothered to do any attempt at reform before the UK left, the UK could of tabled another vote as things would of changed and sadly the EU didn't do that and more so France been insistent that any reforms do not happen until the UK has left.
Remember that the EU was a trade agreement that people voted to join, what it became is something the people had no direct say in at all and that was the root of much divide that has grown over the past few decades. Me I do feel it is in the best interest of the EU and the UK to divorce as the UK has held the EU back upon many votes and looking at the voting history shows this and the EU could of had better financial regulations decades ago, regulations needed to work with the EURO financial model and that has not been good for the Euro.
No tabloid or other such outlet was used to form this opinion, other opinions may vary.
That's equally applicable at the national level too
>THAT is exactly how MEP voting choice was in some EU member countries that didn't have any EPP representation, say or choice and not a single EPP MEP voted for and yet it is the EPP that runs the EU.
The President of the European Commission may be an EPP member, but the college as a whole is pretty representative of the party make-up of the Parliament as a whole:
Party-Group / Commission / Parliament
EPP-EPP / 37% / 24%
PES-S&D / 33% / 21%
ALDE-RE / 19% / 14%
Ind-NI / 7% / 14%
ECR-ECR / 4% / 8%
>Yes the EU isn't perfect but when they can't even sort out their own accounts and get them signed off year upon year, that's not a good sign of leadership or credibility.
That's not true, you are repeating disinformation.
EU accounts have been signed off with a clean opinion every year since 2007.
> Heck even they admit they need to reform
So? Integrating an entire continent - and doing it right - takes time and needs to be done in an incremental fashion.
> which is sad as they didn't admit that until after the whole UK interdependence vote
Again, that is not true. Nobody thought that as soon as the Lisbon Treaty came in to force that the job was done.
>and that vote only came about as the UK leadership went to the EU for reforms and got palmed off with some tokens.
Once more - that is simply not true.
The UK didn't go to the EU with reforms, the UK went to the EU with a set of demands for special treatment. Demands that, in part, would undermine the single market.
> Ironically had the EU even bothered to do any attempt at reform before the UK left, the UK could of tabled another vote as things would of changed
Can you guess what I'm about to say? Yup, that is not true.
The people championing brexit (and by that I mean the politicians and notorious business people like Dyson and Martin) didn't give a shit about "reform". They wanted out and they were damned well going to get out by hook or by crook.
Do you really think the likes of the ERG would ever have countenanced a second vote?
>Remember that the EU was a trade agreement that people voted to join
ARRRGH. No. No it wasn't.
The EU has always, always, been a political project to integrate Europe.
Don't believe me? Let me quote a landmark case from the Court of Justice from 1963:
"The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of member states, Community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty, but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the Community."
Does that sound like it's talking about a mere trade agreement?
And bare in mind that the UK, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Cypress, Malta, Sweden, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Croatia all applied to join, and then did join, after that judgment was given.
That's 21 of the current 27 member states, plus the UK.
> what it became is something the people had no direct say in at all
Every member state has to agree to treaty changes. People could have voted for governments that would say no to those changes. Many member states usually have referendums - the proposed constitution was vetoed by referendums. Ireland extracted concessions by rejecting the Lisbon Treaty the first time around.
Whilst the debate about how accounts with errors could be signed off, the matter probably best covered here:
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/
> That's equally applicable at the national level too
Very true and politics as it stands needs an overall to align with modern times as akin to electing one tool to handle all issues for 4-5 years is never an ideal solution as anybody who uses tools can attest. A more granular say in things is needed and whilst we are stuck with a limited choice selection of inputs we can only put an X every 4-5 years, politics will always drift from public opinion however initially the party was elected.
>Do you really think the likes of the ERG would ever have countenanced a second vote?
Point I was making is that had there been something that irrespective of how it effected the UK seen to change within the EU then politically there would of been a fair reason to put the brexit vote back to the people as what they had voted upon had changed and would of been a valid reason to enable that. Sure both sides had their rhetoric charismatics but the crux was without that change it would of been seen as a repeat vote, if something in the EU had changed then that would be totally different and even Tusk at the time as did many EU politician state that the EU needed some reforms. That is a matter they don't disagree upon, yet Macron has made it clear that any such reforms do not happen until the UK has left the EU. Which I can equally respect, but equally lament.
> ARRRGH. No. No it wasn't.
The UK people had a say to join the ECC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community
The first say they had in any EU aspect (including Maastricht) political as a direct question was Brexit. Yes many other members took many changes from the ECC to the EU today too the people for a vote and whilst much of that was mooted for votes upon Maastricht and the like and even EU membership (Liberal Democrats was keen upon that until they got a result of leave). Sure you can say people voted for parties that made promises of votes, sadly such things got left so long for what result, the children of the parents who voted to join the ECC for the sake of the children, those children growing up and predominantly voting to leave the EU (which the ECC became).
So we shall agree to disagree upon that. As whilst the EU has always been political, in this instance the only say the people had upon membership of the EU was to say no, they said yes to the ECC in which the EU evolved into with the people being given no direct say and that may also of made a huge difference.
Crux is as far as the EU goes, most UK not really embraced it's direction and kinda seen the UK become that disgruntled employee that takes loads of sick days and causes disruption for the rest of the class and voting history of the UK and it's influence of vote upon others to play sheep and follow has seen many an EU initiative stymied by the UK's veto. Personally I do believe that had the EU had financial regulation changes they wanted without the UK blocking to protect it's own interest (which was fair and right for the UK), then you see initiatives the majority wants and needs blocked by a single member. Now that's EU democracy at work and general right, but without the closer integration of currency et all the initiative has tried to build upon foundations that are not as robust as could be. That and the impact upon the Euro and the amount of QE to keep the Euro competitive for exports as well as imports makes for a financial juggle that has seen much unfairness. After all Euro countries locked in at time of joining, so if they played up their status to join then they are locked at a level at which technically they are below and vice versa. So if Italy or Greece made out things better than was when joining then down the line the impact would see a huge negative impact, equally if say Germany played down it's finances when it joined, then it would see a better return with that lock-in. Of course that is all over simplified and the whole matter is very complex in the details, but the crux is - the EU better of without the UK and since UK been locked out of EU votes, seen financial changes move forward. Whilst the UK not the only country with protected interests that has held many things back, financial services has been one that is cornerstone for the EU's unity.
So yeah, the UK people voted to join a trade agreement and first say upon the political project of the EU and they said no and it all could of been avoided. In that time the whole things best summed up by UK comedy of old: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE
> Every member state has to agree to treaty changes. People could have voted for governments that would say no to those changes. Many member states usually have referendums - the proposed constitution was vetoed by referendums. Ireland extracted concessions by rejecting the Lisbon Treaty the first time around.
Yes, but not all those member countries took any of those voted to the people as a referendum and many who did, reran those referendums seeing a change in outcome to say yes. The UK had no such referendums and that is a source of much lament and a product of failings of all UK political parties to various degree's as they all had the opportunity.
One flaw in the EU that they do need to fix is how large corporations can abuse country tax laws and by that use the single market to pick the cheapest member tax liability wise and funnel sales via them to negate local country tax they would of paid had they paid all taxes locally. So can expect in a year or so for Amazon, Google, Apple et all to not have the headline how they only paid a few pennies on the pound tax wise as they will no longer be legally able to use the single market quirks to their advantage tax wise. So there is that, and a source of unfairness that the EU really needs to fix. Though when they had Junker as president who was probably one of the most knowledgeable people upon such issues, nothing changed. I say one of the most knowledgeable as he did set-up the Luxenbourg ones many a large corporation enjoy. Indeed the Guardian feels he was unhelpful upon such issues: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/01/jean-claude...
But however you look at it, if you had a company and one employee that caused most of the chaos and issues and their heart wasn't in the job, would you not let them go in the interests of the company and rest of the employee's?
Either way, the EU has an opportunity to address it's unity and I hope it does or be more referendums down the line and that can all be avoided.
Yes. But the problem is people have a very hard time doing that. You cannot engage with EU level politics the same way you can in a real country. All these people speak different languages. Very hard to stay engaged when you have to listen to translations. You hardly ever get the kind of engaging coverage you would for domestic politics.
I know most of the politicians and parties in my country. I would easily recognize and have some opinion about most prominent congresspeople and senators in the US. Same goes for knesset members. Yet off top of my head I couldn't name you 10 EU MEPs. I know names of the biggest parties in the EU parliament but I couldn't tell you much about them.
Unless EU actually tries to establish a common culture and a common language, I don't see much changing.
There already is a common language and it's English. It may not be officially recognized but it's what everybody working for an EU institution uses.
Not knowing any MEPs by name is your choice and not a deficiency of the EU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io8aRZUFCxE
Even the speaker of the house doesn't. President of the EU commission starts off in her language, briefly reads some English off a piece of paper and then switches back. Maybe 1 in 3 or 4 MEPs speak some English. It's very hard to watch. And mind you, in most EU countries regular people would have trouble following the English translation too, they'd need to find one in their language.
I'm not questioning what you said about those working in EU institutions, I'm sure that's true. But that's irrelevant, that's not what drives politics.