Europe
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
view the rest of the comments
Wouldn't a more elegant solution be more thought put into what kind of votes need a supermajority or some specific % over 50 to need a successful vote? Surely at some point, for it to be a democracy, you do need the majority rule to win the day, right++? I'd argue one or two nations vetoing a thing agreed upon by everyone else is more explicitly anti democratic than those nations needing to abide by a vote they handily lost.
I think the EU is at the limits of what a loose confederation can do, we've seen historically these arrangements just can't really function long term on a large scale. And the argument here is that for Europe to stay relevant in a world where the US and China, not to mention Russia, exists if not as outright adversaries then stiff competitors, there needs to be a better ability to coordinate this like military and money. Especially the latter, I'd argue... how many European start ups immediately abandon ship for the US as soon as they go public because there's a pile of investment money there rather than the fractured markets of Europe? That problem is never going away on its own, even with the US playing target practice with its feet (slight digression there, but I think it's one of the most obvious examples of why the EU needs reform towards stronger federal power).
At a certain point, if you want a large functioning democratic body with any power, you need to submit to the decisions of that power whether you agree with the decision or not. That's not just colloquial versus not, that's the very essence of democracy imo. If you can just opt out of decisions you don't like, that's not really democratic rule, that's just a forum for discussion.
++(Obviously, this implicitly needs rights and protections to prevent one group from outright repressing another, but still, a veto seems like a really, really inelegant solution to avoiding tyranny of the majority situations.)
You are making the mistake to believe the EU can only compete by becoming what it despises. This will have the opposite effect in reality, with the EU breaking apart.
shrug I don't see a path away from it; separate, the individual nations aren't big enough to be relevant. China isn't going to be supplanted for the manufacturing hub nor the US as the financial hub without more cohesion, and so Europe will continue to lose relevancy in terms of ability to influence world geopolitics.
We've seen time and time again promising European countries jump ship for the US when it's time to go public... the money is here in Europe but broken into fractured markets with just as fractured rules and regulations. Why would a company looking for investment bother when they can just go to the US and get one big pile of it?
This isn't even addressing even more practical problems like military.
Confederacies just don't last very long historically. They either break or become more centralised eventually.
[citation needed]
(And they often break apart after briefly becoming more centralized, in an misguided attempt to force unity where there isn't any anylonger)
First two that come to mind as the most problematic and needing reform are the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the United States nearly collapsing with the confederation is an obvious example. Can you think of any in the modern era that have succeeded long term?
Put another way: they were already falling apart. Them falling apart wasn't the fault of centralising. It was the fault of the loose union giving the governing body too little power to govern effectively. I've given some examples of this in the EU with both the military and balkanized access to capital directly leading to us losing lucrative companies we created to the US. It's like a brain drain but for wealth generating businesses. Military problems are obvious to all with Russia now and the tough spot we've found ourselves in outsourcing our defense to the US for decades... what is the solution to these problems if not stronger federal power for the EU? Because they aren't going away.
I'd suggest the federalism of the US isn't what we or most people despise about the US. The two aren't related.
The US was at most very briefly a confederacy, and the US civil war had little to do with that despite one side calling itself such.
The EU is an obvious successful modern example, and if you want historical examples, then the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations lasted a millenium and despite sometimes nominally having an emporer it was practically a confederation.
And besides, ask some person living in a Democrat majority US state how they feel about the current Trump administration of their federal government interfering with their life and sending a militarized police occupation force into their cities?
I was referring to the articles of confederation, not the Confederacy, and how short lived it was was my point.
The EU as a governing body and not just a trade group really isn't that old yet.
The needs of a modern global economy are completely different, though.
That said, I'm happy to just say we agree to disagree on whether this is broadly true or not.
I would like a response to my specific points though about trouble the EU is running into and how up fix those problems if not more federal power to the EU? How do you stop EU companies from jumping ship to the US for their large single investment market without a competing consolidated European one? How do we mount our own effective defense force without a central power to manage it?
This can still happen (and historically, as the birthplace of fascismhas, has happened) in European nations within said nations, though. That's nothing inherent to any political system.
The breakdown of the US political landscape seemingly doesn't have a lot to do with their version of federalism; most of Europe has far more explicitly central national governments and this hasn't happened (lately). That kind of abuse of power can happen under literally any system from fascist to socialist.
I would first like to have some solid evidence that these are caused by the confederal structure of the EU, and that they would be indeed solved by moving to a federal system. So far that seems to me like pure conjecture and also a huge gamble that could destroy the EU in the process.
In a centralized state, yes. But that is exactly what a confederacy isn't. And the concrete example is that people in other states voted for Trump and thus directly interefered with the affairs of a state that didn't. That isn't at all comparable to a state internal problem.
I mean, they are self evident, no? A balkanized investment market exists because there's no single structure to manage one large one. There's no single EU military. No?
I can't be arsed to give any other than logical arguments such as the above. That's why I said I'm happy to leave this as an 'agree to disagree' moment, because that's really hard to prove one way or the other, and I consider this casual conversation not debate. So I'm happy to just say we have different perspectives here and call it a day. I've cited a few examples, as have you, I don't think either position is stupid or poorly thought out, I just disagree with your conclusion.
Isn't this just libertarianism?
You'll have to explain to me how. Whether you "zoom in" or "zoom out" the principle is the same, as far as I can tell.