You can't have short-term, mass migration without having something happen or change. We will see a huge change in European political landscape within the next few years. People have to slowly assimilate into a culture in order to allow for a gradual, peaceful change in that culture. Shocking these types of systems with any sort of migration is a recipient for instability.
Please keep in mind that this isn't any sort of stupid anti-Muslim rhetoric, just a geopolitical observation. I think if you look at the United States you'll see a model of Muslim integration.
The problem is that you assume they will assimilate, based on the current 2nd and 3rd generation MENA immigrants in Europe that might not be the case.
Europe isn't a good place for assimilation, you can be a 3rd generation "immigrant" living in France but you will not be French regardless of how PC they might appear to be.
European nationality is very much based on blood ties to the land, ethnic nationality was the driving force behind the emergence of Nations in Europe in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
Trying to compare them to "new world" nations, and specifically the US isn't really appropriate.
The US was built by immigrants and the moment you arrive regardless of who you are or where you come from (to some degree) you are an American, this is not the same for many European nations.
Additionally it seems that judging by past MENA immigration patterns assimilation is also very much opposed by the communities at large, even communities that socio-economically are not ghettos like many immigrant neighborhoods and even whole towns still seem to rather change their environment to fit their culture rather than assimilate to the existing one.
I see an overall trend of of authoritarianism and nationalism as a response to immigration and an increasingly changing world. There's also a pretty heavy streak of anti-intellectualism as voters were encouraged to fundamentally reject experts that gave (IMHO well-founded) warnings about the ill-effects of Brexit and Trump.
The US takes in about a million legal immigrants per year [1], the EU took in 1.6 million immigrants from non EU countries in 2014 [2]. The US has a population of 320 million, and the EU has 508 million. So the immigration is about the same per capita. So I think it should be possible to deal with that.
> You can't have short-term, mass migration without having something happen or change.
I am generally confused by the claim of "mass migration". As this chart shows, EU migration of 2013 is below the rate of 2002 and is only now recovering from the 2008 economic crisis.
I find it funny that the top comment in regards to the question "Is Europe Disintegrating?", is all about immigration.
I know you don't mean anything bad about it, as you have mentioned. I am simply pointing the fact that this comment, that is strictly related to immigration, is the one that is the most up voted.
To me, it shows that people see immigration as the biggest problem of Europe, or at least the most discussed.
I don't think immigration is the main reason people have anti-eu sentiments.
More problematic is the forced integration of diverse cultures and diverse economic backgrounds who don't speak the same language. Also there is a lot of obvious financial waste in its centre, lots of lobbyism and poor democratic safeguards. People, including me, feel they have no influence at all and a lot of the de decisions being made are not in the personen peoples interest. Massive immigration issues only examplify those issues.
Pro EU sentiment increased markedly in pretty much all of Europe post-Brexit[1], and hopefully national politicians will stop playing the silly "do bad/unpopular things and then blame them on the EU"-game.
This game was thought to be without cost, now it is clear that it is not, and the ones who played it most extensively are paying the biggest price.
Europe is learning the same thing that the United States did in its early days: it's impossible for a union of disparate states to survive without strong, overarching federal authority. It's as unpalatable to member states now as it was to the original colonies, but the alternative is to be subsumed by some outside, more centrally organized power. The Russians understand this, which is why they work to encourage nationalism among EU members. Once the infighting has weakened everyone, they can swoop into the vacuum and become this central authority.
From what I hear, most of those who find the EU "unpalatable" have huge misconceptions about how it is organized, how the various bodies are staffed, how representatives are chosen and what the different bodies do. It's in part because national news give little focus to it and, therefore, its function becomes obscure, prime material for propaganda.
> The Russians understand this, which is why they work to encourage nationalism among EU members.
The Americans would do that as well. Even those are friendly allies (compared to Russia or China say). It is still beneficial to play them against each other. Say retaliate against France by loosening tariffs for German made goods.
European Union is not working because too many different economies are in the eurozone. I was a fervent Pro-EU, now realising a federation of independent countries might work better than a superstate.
EU in its simplest form is harmonization of rules and a bigger market for you to sell your goods. That part works exceptionally well. I don't see a single reason where that could be a negative in a mid to long term.
The euro zone, which tries to connect some very different economies is not working that great but EU countries can decide to stay out of that part.
If we're talking "what would work best for everyone in the world", then I kind of agree that many small "states" (or whatever) would perhaps be for the best, but that opportunity has passed with the existence of superstates like the US, China, India and Russia. In the world we currently exist, the only rational[1] thing to do is to amass as much power[2] as possible. There are upsides, though, e.g. the ability to divert away from fossil fuels and to invest in renewables. I mean, it's possible such a thing could happen in a decentralized system, but I think it would require "perfect" information, the majority of citizens being "rational" and/or perfectly "self+offspring-interested", etc.
It most definitely is and it takes a very starry eyed sort of person to expect otherwise. The idea that 20 or so different people with different languages, religions, mores, histories, frames of reference, economies could somehow achieve monetary or much less political union under the rule of an un-elected and un-accountable bureaucracy of "commissioners" who rule by means of "directives" (you couldn't make it sound more soviet-y even if you tried) was beyond ludicrous from day 1. A modest trade union with some freedom of movement for qualified workers was achievable and maybe in the end it will settle to just that. In fact I think the soviety approach to building the whole thing ensured its demise. Diverse people can collaborate productively and profitably under win-win free market arrangements. But in the EU system there's too many zero-sum games being constantly played and decided on a purely political level (rather than by market forces) and that creates a lot of bad blood pretty quickly. The reluctance of Germans to bail out southern Europeans is just an instance of that.
Or is it maybe actually elected, actually held accountable?
> The idea that 20 or so different people with different languages, religions, mores, histories, frames of reference, economies could somehow achieve monetary or much less political union
Aha, so how did the US do it? By the time it was formed, not even half of the people spoke a common language (There was quite a large amount of German and French immigrants in those days), it was full of groups with different religions and traditions.
First "un-elected and un-accountable bureaucracy" is wrong. The parliament is elected directly and the decision-making is not less democratic than any other member state.
Some problems and an example do not make the EU a failure. The economical and social advantages of EU have been already significant.
If you were not the 'sophisticate' troll that I think you are, I would have spend more time trying to explaining you this.
I'd argue the exact opposite is true: an absence of strong centralized authority will be its undoing. The competing powers in the world, China, Russia, and the United States, are all organized around subsuming diverse social, economic, and geographic groups beneath centrally organized power. This allows them to amass tremendous resources towards pursuing their narrowly focused geopolitical agendas, and outcompete independent states or smaller coalitions. Despite how comforting nationalism can seem, the reality is that no one member of the EU is capable of independently resisting threats to their sovereignty from one of these groups. Any reprieve from "oppressive bureaucracy" is going to be eventually undone by a loss of autonomy from an outside force. It's not starry eyed, but a cold, cynical choice about the bigger thing to which you're going to belong.
Based on the following graph[1], yes. If the UK has voted to leave the with an EU favourability rating of 44, Greece at 27 and France at 38 will not be far behind.
Based on my recent experience of visiting Europe - yes, it is. I stayed mostly in France, was there during the Brexit vote, and everyone I spoke to was pretty keen on exiting the EU, voting right-wing, and seeing it all crumble. They also have several separatist movements, especially in Brittany, which seems to be more anti-EU than anti-French...
Living in one of the PIGS, I can tell there's not much going on here about leaving the EU. Nobody has seriously brought it up. That said, I see important problems in the EU going on now that must be solved:
1. I know the EU is completely against the "two-speed Europe". But that MUST be put in place if the EU is to survive. There's a clear divide between regions in the EU. It is a cultural divide in the way work is seen, perceived, in the way money is handled, on how corruption is seen by citizens, etc. That's why after decades the economies of the PIGS have not adjusted to the rest of the EU, and they probably will never adjust. It's a cultural thing that won't change.
Also, I suppose rich and poor countries don't equally agree with the amount socialism/interventionism the EU should be establishing. For example being from one of the PIGS I like interventionism from the EU because I see local politicians/courts/etc as useless. If you go to court and the verdict is stupid, you can go to a European court. But I suppose people from the north like their local politicians and courts and don't like it when the EU interferes.
2. Many people don't like immigrants. Whether that's racism or not, or whether those people can be educated or not... that's irrelevant. The EU is literally shoving immigrants down people's throats. Immigration from A8 countries MUST be regulated (end of Schengen) and also countries should be able to decide if they want Muslim refugees or not.
Remember this is just my opinion and what I've seen around me as a citizen of one of the PIGS.
I suppose you didn't stay in France after the brexit. Seeing all the mess that it triggered, such as the fact that uk went behind france almost instantly in economic rankings, all this pretty much made everyone here realize those kind of votes do have consequences.
Now what it triggered is also that every single politician talks about reforming europe ( borders mainly, but also politicaly).
All in all, i'd say it pretty much tighten bounds across european countries than the opposite...until britain suddenly experience an extraordinary growth, that is.
> everyone I spoke to was pretty keen on exiting the EU
Exactly what kind of people did you talk to? I visited Paris after Brexit and outside some groups on the far right everyone where laughing at the crazy brittons...
Many in Germany and France consider UK hindering advancement in EU, and consider the Brexit a god send
I'm sorry for your experiences. Here in Ireland people seem to be very favorable to the EU. At the office we tender to call Brexit by more descriptive names such as Bruckup or Brusterfuck.
The EU and its member states will have to adapt. If they don't then yes: Disintegration and a return to rampant nationalism might be the consequence.
The EU in its current incarnation as a centralised, geographically-defined bloc could be considered a relic of colonial, pre-globalization times (as much as nation states are a remnant of pre-industrial, pre-Information Age times).
In order to be able to address the issues of the 21st century we need a much more decentralised structure, more devolution of government to the local level and more cooperation between these decentralised entities.
Large cities in different countries and their respective populations often have much more in common than people from rural regions have in common with these city dwellers (as evidenced by Brexit). Yet through arbitrary national borders they're simply lumped together.
The same applies to border regions. Why shouldn't companies and other organisations from different countries be able to work closer together more easily?
Finally, why should organisations such as the EU be defined in terms of geography instead of in terms of shared values? As of now, Canada for instance would be a much better fit to the EU economically and in terms of values than some of the Eastern European member states.
There are a few interesting articles about this subject and 'neo-medieval' overlapping authorities and multiple identities as a possible outcome:
> What Orbán has done, for example in his takeover of the media, undermines democracy itself.
Those of us who actually lived in Hungary know that the media needs to be regulated to prevent the media from picking our next president.
Orbán was the first politician who had the balls to call out the West on their irresponsible immigration policy, while everyone else was too busy being politically correct. The Austrian media blasted him, however when Austria started doing the same exact thing, they reported it differently.
Look at the Buzzfeed "reporting": they knew the document was most likely fake, yet they decided to publish it anyway.
Integrating all countries of eastern Europe at once and much too early was the beginning of the end. The countries that had been members before were getting so close economically and culturally that I think the current situation would not have been possible and a real united state might not have been only a dream. Politicians wanted too much and too early and did not take the population with them. I love my polish colleagues, but on a macro scale it did not really work.
Yes, the geopolitical motivations were pretty obvious. Of course you were labeled a hopeless conservative or conspiracy nutjob by the europhiles if you brought it up.
I feel very weird that most of my recent comments have been book recommendations, never the less, as usual peripherally related. And yes, i know Europe is not a nation. Hence peripherally. :)
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/d...
Interesting article. I do believe that the EU will collapse, and that it is only a matter of time. First of all, there is not a single instance in History where a common currency, such as the Euro, succeeded. It always has collapsed. Different people in France have developed about this exact subject.
I believe that more and more people are in favor of existing the EU. In the case of France, the first thing that people need to understand, is that a referendum was held in 2005 in France, and that the people have been asked if they wanted to integrate the EU. The No won by over 55%. Even though, Sarkozy signed the treaty and put France into the EU.
EDIT: People also realize that people who run for presidency, only present a program that is actually the program of the EU... In the case of France, there are some specific laws and orientations that the EU is trying to push on the country, on different areas, such a Work law, or GMO. Those laws goes against what generations and generations of people fought for. Other people who run for president also put in their program stuff that would go against the EU program, and that is NOT APPLICABLE. If those were applied, the country would be fined heavily by the EU. Which I think, makes those politics either liers, or incompetents.
The second thing is that more and more people realize that the way it works isn't sustainable, and this for a simple reason; having 28 countries together, who have to obey to the same set of rules (EU treaties), in different area such as Education, Immigration, Finance, Farming, etc... is not possible. Why? Because the interest of Estonia in Immigration are totally different than France's interests in that same area. Italy interests in finance are different than UK, etc... You cannot apply the same rules to everybody.
A simple metaphor to understand the problem is this:
- If you own your own house, you can do whatever you want and paint your outside walls as you like.
- If you own an apartment in a 6 stories building, you probably wont have the freedom to put whatever window you want on it, and there will be a few rules that every story of the building will have to follow.
- Now take a building with 28 stories, is it now harder to make everyone happy? or easier?
If there is a leak under the roof, the owner of the last story will be mad and will want to do something about it. However, it won't be the others owners' priority to fix that. If the first floor has an issue of recurrent flooding, the people for the above stories won't have that as a priority either...
Now, if you want to modify the European treaty, you must have the unanimity of all its members. How is that possible, knowing that each country does not have the same interests/concerns, in any area? It's not. And this is probably why UK tried to negotiate with the EU on a different set of topics, before actually holding the referendum.
Not to mention that countries who are not in the EU, but are in Europe, are doing way better on a lot of aspects, than countries who are part of the EU. A lot of novel prices of economy also stood up and explained that the EU will collapse, and one of them even resigned from the BCE (Banque Centrale Europeenne), and joined a French political party who wants France to get out of the EU, using the Article 50 of the treaty.
European laws exist mostly for matters that concern everybody. Every member state can have its own set of rules.
>Not to mention that countries who are not in the EU, but are in Europe, are doing way better on a lot of aspects
This does not mean that being part of EU has something to do with it. For example, if you want to say Norway, you should compare it with Sweden or Finland, not with Portugal or Bulgaria.
Your house/building analogy is flawed because there are extremely significant rules/regulations about what your house can look like and what materials you can use to build it leveed by all sorts of levels of government as well as HOAs. Doubly so if you live in a historical neighborhood.
And somehow people do manage to live in skyscrapers without flooding the first floor.
I'm not sure if anyone ever attempted a currency something like the Euro before.
> For now there is crisis and disintegration wherever I look: the eurozone is chronically dysfunctional, sunlit Athens is plunged into misery, young Spaniards with doctorates are reduced to serving as waiters in London or Berlin, the children of Portuguese friends seek work in Brazil and Angola
How much truth is there, to this statement i.e. "young Spaniards with PHDs are serving as Waiters in London or Berlin."
Anyone? I find it quite shocking and want to know if the Author is engaging in fear-mongering, or if Europe is indeed falling apart and the part about Greeks, young Spaniards and Portuguese peeps is true.
As long as austerity is enforced under the eu-mark the disintegration is a certainty.
The only way it could be saved would be to jettison the euro or at least the convergence criteria. Germany doesn't seem keen on a succesful EU, perhaps there's some underlaying anger over those last couple of attemps to ruin Europe. One can only guess.
edit: -deleted- this thread has been moved from the front-page, back 5 pages. There is no point making (nor leaving) good arguments in dead threads that no one can see nor take part in.
[+] [-] muninn_|9 years ago|reply
Please keep in mind that this isn't any sort of stupid anti-Muslim rhetoric, just a geopolitical observation. I think if you look at the United States you'll see a model of Muslim integration.
[+] [-] dogma1138|9 years ago|reply
Europe isn't a good place for assimilation, you can be a 3rd generation "immigrant" living in France but you will not be French regardless of how PC they might appear to be.
European nationality is very much based on blood ties to the land, ethnic nationality was the driving force behind the emergence of Nations in Europe in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
Trying to compare them to "new world" nations, and specifically the US isn't really appropriate. The US was built by immigrants and the moment you arrive regardless of who you are or where you come from (to some degree) you are an American, this is not the same for many European nations.
Additionally it seems that judging by past MENA immigration patterns assimilation is also very much opposed by the communities at large, even communities that socio-economically are not ghettos like many immigrant neighborhoods and even whole towns still seem to rather change their environment to fit their culture rather than assimilate to the existing one.
[+] [-] ComradeTaco|9 years ago|reply
In short: Nationalism in, Globalism out.
[+] [-] bjelkeman-again|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2015/tab...
[2[ http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...
[+] [-] tshadley|9 years ago|reply
I am generally confused by the claim of "mass migration". As this chart shows, EU migration of 2013 is below the rate of 2002 and is only now recovering from the 2008 economic crisis.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...
If there is some problem that mass migration causes, why didn't it happen back in 2002?
[+] [-] dkb|9 years ago|reply
I know you don't mean anything bad about it, as you have mentioned. I am simply pointing the fact that this comment, that is strictly related to immigration, is the one that is the most up voted.
To me, it shows that people see immigration as the biggest problem of Europe, or at least the most discussed.
[+] [-] planck01|9 years ago|reply
More problematic is the forced integration of diverse cultures and diverse economic backgrounds who don't speak the same language. Also there is a lot of obvious financial waste in its centre, lots of lobbyism and poor democratic safeguards. People, including me, feel they have no influence at all and a lot of the de decisions being made are not in the personen peoples interest. Massive immigration issues only examplify those issues.
[+] [-] kuschku|9 years ago|reply
Well, luckily, we don’t have that, eh?
In the 90s and 2000s, Western Europe took over a million refugees from the balkans – by 2005, all of them were deported back.
There was no wave of nationalism back then, no political change.
Even today, in Germany, most are in favor of the current refugee policy.
I don’t see why any of what you said has to happen. It hasn’t happened the last time this happened either.
[+] [-] mpweiher|9 years ago|reply
Pro EU sentiment increased markedly in pretty much all of Europe post-Brexit[1], and hopefully national politicians will stop playing the silly "do bad/unpopular things and then blame them on the EU"-game.
This game was thought to be without cost, now it is clear that it is not, and the ones who played it most extensively are paying the biggest price.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/brexit-causes-...
[+] [-] yellow_viper|9 years ago|reply
>and hopefully national politicians will stop
They won't.
[+] [-] alphonsegaston|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbanffy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtsc|9 years ago|reply
The Americans would do that as well. Even those are friendly allies (compared to Russia or China say). It is still beneficial to play them against each other. Say retaliate against France by loosening tariffs for German made goods.
[+] [-] dogma1138|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DrNuke|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bostand|9 years ago|reply
The euro zone, which tries to connect some very different economies is not working that great but EU countries can decide to stay out of that part.
[+] [-] lomnakkus|9 years ago|reply
[1] For a "state" to do.
[2] Economic, political, military, etc.
[+] [-] alkonaut|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MarcusBrutus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kuschku|9 years ago|reply
So tell me, what is this? http://i.imgur.com/zhVYPwN.jpg
And what is this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhafgcPeXes
Or is it maybe actually elected, actually held accountable?
> The idea that 20 or so different people with different languages, religions, mores, histories, frames of reference, economies could somehow achieve monetary or much less political union
Aha, so how did the US do it? By the time it was formed, not even half of the people spoke a common language (There was quite a large amount of German and French immigrants in those days), it was full of groups with different religions and traditions.
[+] [-] matteuan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alphonsegaston|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] walterstucco|9 years ago|reply
I mean traitor
[+] [-] samdoidge|9 years ago|reply
[1](http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-br...)
[+] [-] Mikeb85|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akjainaj|9 years ago|reply
1. I know the EU is completely against the "two-speed Europe". But that MUST be put in place if the EU is to survive. There's a clear divide between regions in the EU. It is a cultural divide in the way work is seen, perceived, in the way money is handled, on how corruption is seen by citizens, etc. That's why after decades the economies of the PIGS have not adjusted to the rest of the EU, and they probably will never adjust. It's a cultural thing that won't change.
Also, I suppose rich and poor countries don't equally agree with the amount socialism/interventionism the EU should be establishing. For example being from one of the PIGS I like interventionism from the EU because I see local politicians/courts/etc as useless. If you go to court and the verdict is stupid, you can go to a European court. But I suppose people from the north like their local politicians and courts and don't like it when the EU interferes.
2. Many people don't like immigrants. Whether that's racism or not, or whether those people can be educated or not... that's irrelevant. The EU is literally shoving immigrants down people's throats. Immigration from A8 countries MUST be regulated (end of Schengen) and also countries should be able to decide if they want Muslim refugees or not.
Remember this is just my opinion and what I've seen around me as a citizen of one of the PIGS.
[+] [-] bsaul|9 years ago|reply
Now what it triggered is also that every single politician talks about reforming europe ( borders mainly, but also politicaly).
All in all, i'd say it pretty much tighten bounds across european countries than the opposite...until britain suddenly experience an extraordinary growth, that is.
[+] [-] bostand|9 years ago|reply
Exactly what kind of people did you talk to? I visited Paris after Brexit and outside some groups on the far right everyone where laughing at the crazy brittons...
Many in Germany and France consider UK hindering advancement in EU, and consider the Brexit a god send
[+] [-] rbanffy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|9 years ago|reply
Were many of them associated with each other for one reason or another?
[+] [-] api|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BjoernKW|9 years ago|reply
The EU in its current incarnation as a centralised, geographically-defined bloc could be considered a relic of colonial, pre-globalization times (as much as nation states are a remnant of pre-industrial, pre-Information Age times).
In order to be able to address the issues of the 21st century we need a much more decentralised structure, more devolution of government to the local level and more cooperation between these decentralised entities.
Large cities in different countries and their respective populations often have much more in common than people from rural regions have in common with these city dwellers (as evidenced by Brexit). Yet through arbitrary national borders they're simply lumped together. The same applies to border regions. Why shouldn't companies and other organisations from different countries be able to work closer together more easily?
Finally, why should organisations such as the EU be defined in terms of geography instead of in terms of shared values? As of now, Canada for instance would be a much better fit to the EU economically and in terms of values than some of the Eastern European member states.
There are a few interesting articles about this subject and 'neo-medieval' overlapping authorities and multiple identities as a possible outcome:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329850-600-end-of-n...
https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-possibility/
https://fieldnotes.mike-walsh.com/brexit-and-the-rise-of-the...
[+] [-] badwulf|9 years ago|reply
Those of us who actually lived in Hungary know that the media needs to be regulated to prevent the media from picking our next president.
Orbán was the first politician who had the balls to call out the West on their irresponsible immigration policy, while everyone else was too busy being politically correct. The Austrian media blasted him, however when Austria started doing the same exact thing, they reported it differently.
Look at the Buzzfeed "reporting": they knew the document was most likely fake, yet they decided to publish it anyway.
[+] [-] majewsky|9 years ago|reply
So it's better if the president picks the next president?
[+] [-] geff82|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xD3ADB33F|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkb|9 years ago|reply
How did the countries that had been members before got close culturally? What do you mean by that?
[+] [-] neom|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tehabe|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkb|9 years ago|reply
I believe that more and more people are in favor of existing the EU. In the case of France, the first thing that people need to understand, is that a referendum was held in 2005 in France, and that the people have been asked if they wanted to integrate the EU. The No won by over 55%. Even though, Sarkozy signed the treaty and put France into the EU.
EDIT: People also realize that people who run for presidency, only present a program that is actually the program of the EU... In the case of France, there are some specific laws and orientations that the EU is trying to push on the country, on different areas, such a Work law, or GMO. Those laws goes against what generations and generations of people fought for. Other people who run for president also put in their program stuff that would go against the EU program, and that is NOT APPLICABLE. If those were applied, the country would be fined heavily by the EU. Which I think, makes those politics either liers, or incompetents.
The second thing is that more and more people realize that the way it works isn't sustainable, and this for a simple reason; having 28 countries together, who have to obey to the same set of rules (EU treaties), in different area such as Education, Immigration, Finance, Farming, etc... is not possible. Why? Because the interest of Estonia in Immigration are totally different than France's interests in that same area. Italy interests in finance are different than UK, etc... You cannot apply the same rules to everybody.
A simple metaphor to understand the problem is this: - If you own your own house, you can do whatever you want and paint your outside walls as you like. - If you own an apartment in a 6 stories building, you probably wont have the freedom to put whatever window you want on it, and there will be a few rules that every story of the building will have to follow. - Now take a building with 28 stories, is it now harder to make everyone happy? or easier?
If there is a leak under the roof, the owner of the last story will be mad and will want to do something about it. However, it won't be the others owners' priority to fix that. If the first floor has an issue of recurrent flooding, the people for the above stories won't have that as a priority either...
Now, if you want to modify the European treaty, you must have the unanimity of all its members. How is that possible, knowing that each country does not have the same interests/concerns, in any area? It's not. And this is probably why UK tried to negotiate with the EU on a different set of topics, before actually holding the referendum.
Not to mention that countries who are not in the EU, but are in Europe, are doing way better on a lot of aspects, than countries who are part of the EU. A lot of novel prices of economy also stood up and explained that the EU will collapse, and one of them even resigned from the BCE (Banque Centrale Europeenne), and joined a French political party who wants France to get out of the EU, using the Article 50 of the treaty.
[+] [-] matteuan|9 years ago|reply
>Not to mention that countries who are not in the EU, but are in Europe, are doing way better on a lot of aspects
This does not mean that being part of EU has something to do with it. For example, if you want to say Norway, you should compare it with Sweden or Finland, not with Portugal or Bulgaria.
[+] [-] nommm-nommm|9 years ago|reply
And somehow people do manage to live in skyscrapers without flooding the first floor.
I'm not sure if anyone ever attempted a currency something like the Euro before.
[+] [-] walterstucco|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sean_patel|9 years ago|reply
How much truth is there, to this statement i.e. "young Spaniards with PHDs are serving as Waiters in London or Berlin."
Anyone? I find it quite shocking and want to know if the Author is engaging in fear-mongering, or if Europe is indeed falling apart and the part about Greeks, young Spaniards and Portuguese peeps is true.
[+] [-] 0xD3ADB33F|9 years ago|reply
The only way it could be saved would be to jettison the euro or at least the convergence criteria. Germany doesn't seem keen on a succesful EU, perhaps there's some underlaying anger over those last couple of attemps to ruin Europe. One can only guess.
[+] [-] powertower|9 years ago|reply