On the other hand it's clear that many large US and European corporations has a huge amount of influence in specific legislation being passed. Forbidding certain types of goods (like e.g. incandescent light bulbs and plastic straws and much, much more) and forcing the use of certain alternatives. This type of random acts of lobby legislation is seen a lot less often in national legislation around the world.
Seriously? Have you bothered to loom around the world, in which countries are large multinationals seeing pushbacks and competition?
Where does google have less than 50% market share? China, Russia. And In russia they had stiff competition from way back, like 2005 days, with Yandex and others.
Where does pharma industry get held to account? India.
Where does big tech get fined for privacy violations? EU.
Boeing has crushed all competitors, in large part through law suits and shady dealing, except Airbus which is unconditionally backed by EU.
Small nations can't seem to hold corporations to account even for blatant crimes.
When UK parliament required Zukerberg to testify, he didnt even bother showing up.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/facebook-...
Every revolution yields extremely positive results at the beginning, during the phase where they seize a lot of private property and redistribute it. Then when it comes to actually producing goods, it may take 80 years for a tyrannical regime to fall down.
The EU, of course, has a few positive trophies. Otherwise, people would notice. Likewise, when it tries to seduce a new country, it pours money into it. Look at Scotland! Every road and building and school seems to be a gift of the EU! Cue the “I like the EU because EU gave us everything!”
Someone else is paying. It’s just a loan - The EU doesn’t “work” for you, doesn’t “pay” for you, it just gives you things it took elsewhere. And while those fines to M$ make me happy, well, I’ve paid a few billions every year to set up the EU, and those fines barely cover the working expenses of MPs, I’m paying for those MPs to work for me. And all they give us is a requirement to open our borders.
The cycle is complete when the “new voters” vote for the EU because it gave them everything.
BTW Spain and Portugal joined the EU in 1986 and are net monetary aid beneficiaries. So your argument about only receiving things initially is hilariously wrong.
Now, rather than using humiliation as part of your handbook, please do not just cherry-pick a counter-example. It’s always mockery that you people are using, not reasoning, not rationality, not taking interest in your enemy’s argument, not taking empathy to understand why would someone ever be doubtful/hateful about the EU, no, just otherise “it”, consider it as an enemy, to take down at all costs, put it on the other side of the fence on a stake, and laugh at him.
And then you take a high air when people get harassed into submission.
You don't like the EU because you don't like "open borders". You'll find any reason to hate the EU without reasoning because you don't like "open borders". Doesn't matter what good the EU has done. It can never outweigh "open borders". The EU "steals" from its members and redistributes. Taxes are theft. Nevermind that modern economies rely on public services and infrastructure funded by taxes.
So the Glorious Revolution in Britain was a mistake, there should be no Bill of Rights, no parliament? The American Revolution has produced a tyrannical regime?
Mr. No Revolutions here would rather still be property of a Medieval Lord. The Lord taxes you as he wishes and has sex with your wife on your wedding night before you do.
> they seize a lot of private property and redistribute it
You mean like when peasants seized the property rights over their bodies and redistributed those rights to themselves? Ye, terrible
> then it comes to actually producing goods
The French revolution produced so many goods that La Grande Armée wooped the asses of every European empire combined. If Napoleon knew when to stop, there would be 10 hours in a day and we'd know a painter called La Hitler.
So where do I sign up for this revolution you are talking about?
So far the only redistribution I see is when tech firms seize my private data and redistribute it to various predatory marketing schemes. So is it like a revolution by corporations against the state?
> It's way harder for an alliance of US tech companies to influence small countries than a big block
Small countries have less resources to combat misinformation, bribery, and corruption of other forms.
It's a lot harder for people to spread misinformation online in a country like Estonia without speaking Estonian and keeping up with Estonian affairs. I think even corruption would be harder to swing against officials in a small European state compared to the EU, because things are less likely to be lost in endless European bureaucracy.
However, I think the nation itself could be "bribed" in a legal fashion. A large company has the resources to make a good enough offer that the country would make concessions on something important. Eg opening a large data center in exchange for more lenient treatment via regulations.
???
Non-native people hire locals for exactly that reason.
Also, there is an abundance of cases of smaller countries being corrupted by foreign influence. It's not just theoretical, it happens widely, and it commonly involves the top ranks (political, military) of those smaller countries.
What does spreading misinformation have to do with corrupting the government? If you want to spread misinformation in the EU, you also must target every individual country. There's no EU-wide propaganda channel.
Euronews ?
Did you know that media companies are owned by foreign companies ? And when they are not, some people from those media companies are members/close to dubious ONGs ?
They are close to 30K lobbyists in Brussels as of this moment. So much for stopping bribery and misinformation. See the current Chat Control law which is sponsored by foreign corporations.
In a world without the EU, those companies would have had to lobby their way into 27 different parliaments and the countries most eager to proceed with a dangerous piece of legislation could have been the canary in the coal mine for the other countries about what not to do.
Instead corporations can now buy their way into the inner circle of a single European commissioner (who is not elected mind you). The EU basically streamlined corruption and lacks the complete oversight to do anything about it.
Finally, the EU as it exists in its current form has only been around for the last 30 years, which is a mere blip in the history of nations like France, Germany and others.
To claim that only an Institution like the EU can bring an end to corruption and bribery seems a complete stretch if not an outright lie.
There are more than 200 sovereign countries in the world out of which 27 decided to completely or partially relinquish their own sovereignty to a supra national agency such as the EU.
This is hardly the norm and history will tell in a hundred years from now that this was bad idea, just like the USSR was a bad idea.
When is this argument going to die? Should all provinces in every country declare independence and take back control from the supra-provincial government? Should all cities in all provinces declare independence from the provincial governments too? Should every neighbourhood....?
You can keep going on about the "supra-national agencies" for as long as you want. At the end of the day your argument rests on the assumption that the nation state is the final form of sovereignty, and there's just no God-given reason for that to be the case.
Entities form political and economic alliances when it is beneficial to do so. There are costs associated with the benefits of course, and those must be evaluated. Your argument that it's inherently bad because "It's not a sovereign nation state any more", is just a rather weak, but infectious, talking point. I don't understand why people keep regurgitating it.
If you are not aware, you should look up the Catalonian referendums and the Scottish National party. Also What about Kosovo? Because something exists does not mean it can not be dissolved or changed.
Bizarrely, when it comes to the EU, most people like you say, well it's there now what do you want to do about it? But the states in Europe were there as well before the CEE and before the EU, shouldn't the same rule apply then?
It is perfectly possible and acceptable for people to decide their fate. If a certain part of a country wants to be independent, why not grant them?
> You can keep going on about the "supra-national agencies" for as long as you want. At the end of the day your argument rests on the assumption that the nation state is the final form of sovereignty, and there's just no God-given reason for that to be the case.
I don't know about the god given reasons. But I do know that a nation is made of a history, a culture, a language, common values and a common identity.
You can't just wave a wand in the air and say to 500 million people, here you go, you are no longer French, German or Spanish, you are European. It's been tried in the past with arbitrary borders being drawn between India and Pakistan and as well in Africa. We can see the results of that now.
> Entities form political and economic alliances when it is beneficial to do so. There are costs associated with the benefits of course, and those must be evaluated. Your argument that it's inherently bad because "It's not a sovereign nation state any more", is just a rather weak, but infectious, talking point. I don't understand why people keep regurgitating it.
Absolutely but there is a difference between an alliance and a supra national authority that can impose rules and regulations to it's members. Then its not an alliance, that's being a vassal to another state/entity.
A sovereign state can decide it's fate and decide what is beneficial for itself and it's citizens. States can agree to implement laws based on pacts and treaties. That is not disputed.
If there is a supreme authority that can compel you to apply laws to your citizens without their explicit approval, then, the state becomes just a shell.
In essence this setup of the EU will lead the the formation of the "United states of Europe". That may be well and good for you but shouldn't the people be asked their opinions about it?
We are all empty shells then, given that the state can apply laws to us without our explicit approval.
Just like you are free to do whatever you want as an individual, as long as you are willing to face the consequences that may be forced upon you by society. So too are the EU member states free to do whatever they want, subject to consequences imposed by the other members.
> In essence this setup of the EU will lead the the formation of the "United states of Europe". That may be well and good for you but shouldn't the people be asked their opinions about it?
The EU consists of mostly functioning democratic societies. Those societies decide. That doesn't mean every single person within must agree. Such is life as part of a society.
Will you move on to claim that the EU is undemocratic now? Because there are "unelected" officials? And this differs from the democratic governments of individual nations how exactly? Because you cannot vote on the representatives from a different EU country, just like you cannot vote on provincial representatives from other provinces in your national government?
> This is hardly the norm and history will tell in a hundred years from now that this was bad idea, just like the USSR was a bad idea.
Please, which norm are we talking about? The very first states with clear borders and independent government as we know today started to emerge in the 17th century. Germany, the most powerful state in Europe, has barely more than 30 years.
Countries are a new invention in the history of mankind and it's not the most likely that they will still exist in the next 100 years. And if you think that can't be true, imagine yourself as a citizen from the Roman Empire in 350, would you think that your super powerful unrivaled empire would cease to exist 100 years later?
Empires are a few thousand years old.
Unaccountable bureaucracies, disconnected from citizens, but with huge power over their daily lives, is definitely the new kid on the block. And generally not a very succesful one I might add. I think comparison to Soviet seems quite apt.
Nation-states and nationalism are less than 3 centuries old, and so are closed borders. Countries in antiquity were nothing like what we have now.
> Unaccountable bureaucracies, disconnected from citizens, but with huge power over their daily lives, is definitely the new kid on the block.
There are several loaded and emotional words in this, which plenty of room to move the goal posts. Faceless bureaucracies with huge power of the people’s daily lives is definitely not you, any empire has to do this to some extent just to keep existing. Famous examples with plenty of documentation are ancient Egypt and the Maya empire. Hardly brand-new fancy countries.
> And generally not a very succesful one I might add.
Appart from all the others, I suppose. How are we supposed to run those huge countries with tens of millions of citizens? You keep harping about the EU, so please enlighten us and explain how your country (or your ideal country, even) does it better.
> I think comparison to Soviet seems quite apt.
Lol no is about the most serious answer one can give to this assertion. The Soviet Union was an empire. Its problems came from its stupid political system (which has fuck all to do with either the EU or the US), not from the fact that it was a union of states (just like the US or Germany).
The list you show there is the latest incarnation of most countries. In almost all cases, something similar preceded it.
Heavily centralized nation states create discontinuities in culture. You can see this clearly with countries such as France and Denmark, where you cross the border and suddenly everything is different. For other countries the borders have historical reasons, but are fairly arbitrary. Consider Germany and the Swiss province of Schaffhausen. Why should the people of Schaffhausen be governed under a completely different set of rules than their literal neighbours? I know Switzerland is not part of the EU, but it highlights the absurdity of your claim.
You rage against unaccountable bureaucracies as if they are new. They're not, and they're more accountable than those of the past. The Roman Empire certainly had a great deal of power over its citizens, and I find it hard to take you seriously when you imply that the EU is less accountable to its citizens than literally any government of similar size that has ever existed...
Where have I suggested anything remotely similar. I have compared the EU to USSR because of the similarly unaccountable bureaucracy. I could however be brought to argue that the Roman bureaucracy was superior to the EU bureaucracy. At least the Romans had sense enough to let many new laws expire after a set period. (Usually a year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision)
> Countries and nation states are different things. Prior to the development of the nation state and national identity, cultural changes were much smoother across Europe. That doesn't mean that the cultural differences between regions weren't larger than they are today, but the change was more gradual. It was only with the development of national ideas that it became important for people living on one end of the country to identify with people on the other end.
This has to be the main confusion of our time. Just because every border is not exactly perfect, it must mean that every border that has ever been drawn is completely arbitrary.
This is just a modern liberal pipe dream. The fact is that European countries are roughly placed where the linguistic, ethnical and religious borders were. . E.g Germany may be a new country, but the German language, was definitely a thing long before Germany. (Clearly, with more dialects than are spoken today, but still languages clearly identifiable as being german). You can still today in Germany, see a clear split between the catholic and protestant parts.
Just because something was not called a nation state, does not mean that it wasn't something very, very close to that. A nation state, when it's not an empire, is just the modern version of a tribe. And many places you see tribes struggling to found their corresponding nation state: see e.g. the Basques, the Kurds and the Irish. (First two having failed, third succeeded). You don't seriously claim that there are no Kurds, do you?
Apologies for taking the analogy too far.
> I have compared the EU to USSR because of the similarly unaccountable bureaucracy.
This is an opinion that is hard to justify, but whatever.
> This has to be the main confusion of our time. Just because every border is not exactly perfect, it must mean that every border that has ever been drawn is completely arbitrary.
I'm not claiming borders are completely arbitrary. I am, however, claiming that more often than not, borders are drawn such that they separate tribes that were previously quite close culturally. Other times borders are drawn through tribes.
Over generations, a strong state manages to assimilate the tribe, and tribes on either side of the divide drift apart as individual members drift toward the national identity.
I make no judgment on whether that is good or bad. I am only stating that the concept of national identity accelerates this process. I obviously do not dispute that the German language, and many parts of German national identity, were shared across modern day Germany prior to its current form. I am only arguing that these cultural regions are more flexible than you seem to think.
The problem with the argument that borders are logical delineations between tribes, cultural, or linguistic regions, is that you have to base that on some criteria. If you choose language and culture, we will have to deal with Alsace-Lorraine, again... and so on, and so on.
Everyone has a right to fight whichever state they are subject to, but they don't have some objective moral high ground just because they want to be free of it. Sovereign citizens can make all the arguments they want, nobody will take them seriously. That's one extreme end of the scale. The area is obviously very grey when it comes to real independence movements such as the Scottish or Catalan. However, at the end of the day, all that matters is whether you have the power on your side to do it, and you are willing to pay the price. We cannot establish any logical framework for when independence is objectively warranted, without also allowing things like sovereign citizens. You have to put the threshold somewhere, and as soon as you do, people will fall on either side based on personal opinion and it won't be logical any more.
I wish we could move beyond the "EU bad because it's a super-state that takes away sovereignty" arguments, because it's so silly. They're rooted in a subjective belief that the EU is bad. That's a completely acceptable opinion to have, and it is one that can have evidence presented for and against it. The sovereignty argument is an emotional excuse with no rational basis.
Right. Unless something is perfect, then it is worthless. And it’s “moot”.
OP made a claim that being a bigger country means less corruption and less misinformation without giving any evidence. By his or her logic the biggest countries in the world would be corruption free. They are not so the OP's claim is invalidated.
As opposed to your evidence for your claim, because you feel yours is intuitively correct?
How about providing evidence (!) for your own thing first? :)
Meanwhile, there are tonnes of examples of smaller nations that have been corrupted. Look at Africa for several examples, Sri Lanka in the news about a year ago, Myanmar (ongoing), etc. :(
No it is not intuitively correct but it is backed-up by data. The quote I was responding to was:
> Small countries have less resources to combat misinformation, bribery, and corruption of other forms.
The quote in question implies that bigger countries have more power to fight disinformation and corruption. Is that true or false?
> How about providing evidence (!) for your own thing first? :)
If we look at the data, the answer is false. In the top 10 of the least corrupted countries, where do big countries stand?
The response is that they are not in the top 10. US, China, India, Brazil, Nigeria, none are not in the top 10.
That's according to https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022/ which is a non-profit organization that fights and denounces corruption around the world.
So there you go I proved my point even though I did not have too.
Why? because if you tell me that the sky is green and I tell you that I don't agree with your opinion, I don't have to prove you wrong, you are the one claiming something and therefore you have to prove you point or to put it another way, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
> Meanwhile, there are tonnes of examples of smaller nations that have been corrupted. Look at Africa for several examples, Sri Lanka in the news about a year ago, Myanmar (ongoing), etc. :(
This is a straw-man argument on top of cherry picked data, I can respond with the same sentence and be just as correct as you:
Meanwhile, there are tonnes of examples of bigger nations that have been corrupted. Look at China for several examples, India and so on..
The bottom line is that OP made an assertion, without any evidence which has been proven wrong.
Looking at my quote from before:
> Small countries have less resources to combat misinformation, bribery, and corruption of other forms.
Then looking at your transparency.org link... is has an awful lot of small countries in the bottom rungs of the list.
According to that list, they're far more corrupted than the US (#24), China (#65), Brazil (#94).
Nigeria is definitely in a bad spot though (#150). It's still in a better spot than the 30 other (small) countries below it.
That's not the only yardstick, is it? Look at how effective large companies are in exploiting loopholes in the tax code of individual (smaller) countries, like Bermuda, Ireland and The Netherlands. The reason is that individual countries pursue this for their own interest. Corruption is probably also involved, but corruption also exists in large organizations in large countries. Do I even need to mention Trump?
The only way out of this tax explotation is "harmonizing" certain taxes across the EU. That's a sensitive topic, not under the EC's jurisdiction, and progress is slow, but we'll get there.
> a mere blip in the history of nations like France, Germany and others.
Which Germany? Current Germany exists since 1994, and is younger than the EU. Supranational organizations are also not that new, think Holy Roman Empire. That may be taking your argument a bit too literally, but modern states are not that old. Foundations were laid around 200-250 years ago, I'd say, and can hardly be compared with today's. The EU and its predecessors now span 75 years.
> This is hardly the norm and history will tell in a hundred years from now that this was bad idea, just like the USSR was a bad idea.
Just wow. The EU has flaws, but that's an insane comparison.
That has nothing to do with what I said. The Claim by OP was that the EU was better at stamping out corruption because it was bigger.
That's demonstrably false. Corruption and bribery existed before the EU as you pointed out and it exists now as well. So this point is mute.
The only difference as I explained in my comment is that now, the entities wishing to corrupt and/or influence don't have to lobby their way into 27 different governments, they can just get cozy with one of the commissioners and push their agenda. Much more efficient and also less costly.
If there is one thing I have learned in my short career as an SDE is that having a single point of failure in your organization is a recipe for disaster. You want redundancy and checks and balances so that not one person can bring the whole thing down.
Here we have the exact opposite. The commissioners are chosen via back-room meetings between the ministers of the member states, their mandates are not revocable by the people, and since there is only one of them, you don't need to reach a consensus to push a new law. That in itself means that they can be easily influenced and their potential for damage is greater.
> The only way out of this tax exploitation is "harmonizing" certain taxes across the EU. That's a sensitive topic, not under the EC's jurisdiction, and progress is slow, but we'll get there.
I am not sure why you are bringing taxes in this thing. That was never the argument.
> Which Germany? Current Germany exists since 1994, and is younger than the EU. Supranational organizations are also not that new, think Holy Roman Empire. That may be taking your argument a bit too literally, but modern states are not that old. Foundations were laid around 200-250 years ago, I'd say, and can hardly be compared with today's. The EU and its predecessors now span 75 years.
That is such a straw man argument. France has a state or Kingdom has existed for a least a thousand of years. Germany was part of an empire before becoming a country that was divided and re-united later on.
My comment was simply highlighting the fact that to the EU absolutists if the EU did not exist things would be worse.
My contention is that countries/kingdoms/sates such as Germany and France existed in one shape or another long before the EU came along. Therefore it is possible to return to this type of states without the need for a supra national entity.
> Just wow. The EU has flaws, but that's an insane comparison.
The CEE's goal was to bring peace to the continent and to facilitate trade between the countries. Now the EU decides the monetary policy of the Eurozone countries, it has its own parliament, there is talk about having it's own army, there is a flag and an anthem. To top it all of the laws of the EU supersede the laws of the member states.
The EU is not so much an union anymore but a burgeoning federal state that has started to swallow all it's member states.
You can look up countless articles about the projects of the most radical EU absolutists such as Martin Shulz who are explicitly calling for the creation of the "United states of Europe".
That in turns would result in each country's parliament becoming more or less useless therefore removing the ability for these nations to govern themselves.
Except in this case the power won't be in Moscow but in Brussels.
Overall it leaves a much larger attack surface to lobbying of this kind.
But much more valuable.
Probably easier as well.
I can write to my national member of parliament, but not to the EU MP, since they’re too far from citizen to care, and too close to corporations to reject a lobby’s proposal.
We’ve cornered Europe into a honey trap that will make us as badly governed as the US in a very short time. I’m constantly wondering where I should flee to.
I mean the infamous quote by Jean Claude Juncker says it all: “We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”
The EU very well knows that if most of their policies were up for vote, including each and every job of theirs, they would be out of office within a year.
The USA and the EU have comparable size. Is Washington DC too far away for the USA to work?
> too diverse
The USA is widely regarded as a cultural melting point, and it's ability to attract immigrants from all corners of the world part of the reason for its economic success. I would argue that the EU is less diverse than the USA.
> too big to be trusted
Brussels bureaucracy is in fact relatively small when compared to the national bureaucracies of western countries. This claim was repeatedly made during the Brexit referendum campaign. Interestingly enough, the UK's civil service is aprox 10x the size of Brussels (350k vs. 40k, resp.)
These are claims that are repeated ad nauseam by people who have antipathy towards the EU, but they have very little substance indeed.
It was supposed to be a community to facilitate trade between countries. Instead they want to make it a new country with its own flag, its own parliament, it's own army, it's own laws that supersede the laws of the member states.
The British knew it and that is why they left. This was not supposed to be the plan.
However nowadays criticizing the EU is like asking 2020 where COVID came from, you shouldn't talk about it because otherwise you may be labelled as a conspiracy theorist or even worse a populist.
I assume the next step is you explaining how and in what respects the EU is like the USSR. Because for now it’s not really convincing. For example, how the current decision process could lead to something like the Holodomor. In which way is the European Parliament like the supreme Soviet. How the political systems works to reinforce the power of the biggest member over its satellites. How the EU could do something like the invasion of Afghanistan. How it could bleed itself dry with a pointless arms race. You know, the sort of reasons why the USSR actually collapsed.
> It was supposed to be a community to facilitate trade between countries.
Sigh. It never was. From the beginning it was a union to prevent war between members. You can read on the Schuman declaration (1950) or the treaties of Paris (1951) and Rome (1957), for a start.
> Instead they want to make it a new country with its own flag
It’s not a new country, and it’s not a country at all.
> its own parliament
The common assembly, which became the European Parliament was created with the treaty of Paris in 1951, it cannot have come as a surprise to any member who joined afterwards.
> it's own army
It does not have an army.
> it's own laws that supersede the laws of the member states.
Again, this has been the case since the very beginning, when it was an alliance of 6 countries. How is this any new? Where is the deception?
> The British knew it and that is why they left. This was not supposed to be the plan.
The British left over internal politics and the dysfunction of their main political parties. One side did use the arguments you mentioned. It was bullshit then, and it is stil bullshit now.
> However nowadays criticizing the EU is like asking 2020 where COVID came from, you shouldn't talk about it because otherwise you may be labelled as a conspiracy theorist or even worse a populist.
You can. We’re living in democracies and we can criticise anything we want. The kind of blatant dishonesty and bad faith in your arguments is why you get those labels.
Mainstream political parties criticise the EU all the time, both from left- and right-wing perspectives. If you’re from the UK, I am sorry but your problems come from your own government.
It was literally called the european coal and steel community originally... It very much was about trade. It still is! Not nessacarily a bad thing but its not like it has an army or conducts other forms of foreign policy right now. It's a common market first and foremost, with most of its laws being product and workplace standards
> It does not have an army.
The prior commenter wasn't saying it currently has an army, and you know that. If you've been paying any attention at all to the news you'd know about the discussions of a common army, especially regarding Macron. 414 Tankbataljon in Netherlands was created as a sort of test, staffed with german and dutch soldiers. The French used to be opposed to this because they wanted their independant army, nuclear force, same with UK. UK left and french president thinks differently, its suddenly a lot more likely.
> It’s not a new country, and it’s not a country at all.
again, I'm convinced you're building a strawman here, nobody claimed its like this now, but its definately going in that direction. There is a ton of discussion around EU federalism, again surrounding macron. I used to be active in a political organisation that supported it, but im not that much of a fan personally nowadays because im disillusioned because of how undemocratic EU is up close.
Those reasons are both related to instances of personal corruption I have seen but also to how I don't agree with the dual parlimentary setup, where elected positions hold much less importance in the lower house, and can't propose legislation. The upper house is entirely unelected and can propose legislation. Sure its members are appointed by in theory elected national governments but I don't think thats a good way to go about things, imo national elections style democracy is already a tenuous way to get the will of the people and each step away from elected positions is progressively worse. I see many people in european parliment patting themselves on the back and laughing about how silly they think american system of electors is while doing an imo even worse system.
There are significant benefits to being a member no doubt, but that doesn't mean its a good system
It was not. You can read the thing and all the political arguments on why making countries interdependent was the means to the end of European peace and union (again, from the times of Schuman and Adenauer, so widely known well before the vast majority of the current member-states joined). Some well-known quotes:
" World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it."
"Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries.
With this aim in view, the French Government proposes that action be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point.
It proposes that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organization open to the participation of the other countries of Europe. The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims."
There is nothing in that even alluding to the fact that it was "only trade". And it's not some political fluff distinct from what the member-states signed up for: the language is just as explicit in the treaties of Paris (without an official English translation) and Rome. The coal and steel community had a high authority (with the same role as the European Commission now), a Common Assembly (same as the European Parliament), and drew resolution binding the member states.
> It still is! Not nessacarily a bad thing but it's not like it has an army or conducts other forms of foreign policy right now.
It does not have a foreign policy because its members-states don't want it to have one (well, in this case, mostly France, but others are quite happy about that as well).
> It's a common market first and foremost, with most of its laws being product and workplace standards
That's a profound misunderstanding. It is a political union first and foremost. The regulations are just a byproduct of this and the common market is the logical consequence.
> The prior commenter wasn't saying it currently has an army, and you know that. If you've been paying any attention at all to the news you'd know about the discussions of a common army, especially regarding Macron.
If you've been paying any attention at all, you'd have noticed that this did not happen and that he changed his stance. Do you know why? Because there won't be enough member-states in favour and there is no way the council reaches an agreement. Because fundamentally, all European political decisions are the result of the consensus of the member states and if they want to operate as coordinated national armies instead of an integrated European one, this is exactly what will happen. What won't happen is the Commission deciding one day that the EU has an army.
> 414 Tankbataljon in Netherlands was created as a sort of test, staffed with german and dutch soldiers. The French used to be opposed to this because they wanted their independant army, nuclear force, same with UK.
Are you aware that France and Germany have a very similar common brigade since 1986? So how on Earth do one come to the conclusion that France is hostile to this sort of things? What they don't want is lose their ability to take initiatives.
> UK left and french president thinks differently, it's suddenly a lot more likely.
There is no way in hell France gives up its control on its nuclear weapons. This is outside the scope of all of the European Army hypotheses that have been under discussion.
> again, I'm convinced you're building a strawman here, nobody claimed its like this now, but its definately going in that direction. There is a ton of discussion around EU federalism, again surrounding macron. I used to be active in a political organisation that supported it, but im not that much of a fan personally nowadays because im disillusioned because of how undemocratic EU is up close.
Well, plenty of people claim this. In any case, it is not going to that direction at all. How many federalist parties are there right now in the European Parliament? How many governments are talking about giving up their national sovereignty? And even if some of them wanted, no EU institution has any way of forcing that on the member states.
Macron is not a federalist at all. He wants more integration in some areas (notably military spending and procurement, true). But if you believe he wants to give up things like industrial strategy, foreign policy or the ability to intervene militarily without having to convince the whole European Council, then you haven't been paying attention that much.
Federalism is nothing new, it predates all the European Communities. It fell out of favour significantly after the 1980s, though. It is not a significant force nowadays and if anything, the EU as a single country is all but impossible now after the last rounds of enlargement.
> Those reasons are both related to instances of personal corruption I have seen but also to how I don't agree with the dual parlimentary setup, where elected positions hold much less importance in the lower house, and can't propose legislation. The upper house is entirely unelected and can propose legislation. Sure its members are appointed by in theory elected national governments but I don't think thats a good way to go about things, imo national elections style democracy is already a tenuous way to get the will of the people and each step away from elected positions is progressively worse. I see many people in european parliment patting themselves on the back and laughing about how silly they think american system of electors is while doing an imo even worse system.
I am not going to claim that the EU is perfect; it very much is not. The parliament is more legitimate now than it used to be (direct election of the MEPs is an improvement according to your criteria), but it lacks power and the Commission has too much freedom to ram regulations through parliament. But it has enough flaws and there is no need to make it look worse than it is. All the points the parent mentioned (the single country, the army, the "it's only supposed to be about trade", etc) are populist talking points that are false and dishonest in the mouth of all politicians who ought to know better. People resorting to them uncritically without understanding how absurd they sound is quite annoying.
> There are significant benefits to being a member no doubt, but that doesn't mean its a good system
It'd have to be really, really bad to be worse than what we had before. At the end of the day, if a country is better in it than outside, then it is a good system. Probably not a perfect one, but then no system is.