УНН Politics ✎ Elon Musk reacted to the European Commission's decision to fine the social network X, stating that the European Union should be
"abolished." He believ…
It’s different because here the Britons got exactly what they wanted in the way they wanted it and now they are sad about the monumental consequences of their choice. Calling Venezuela communist is like calling China a democracy, because there’s “voting”.
Genuinely, every country has profited massively from EU membership. “United in Diversity” is a fitting motto. The EU is greater than just the sum of their parts. The EU has enabled unprecedented economic prosperity throughout the continent. It has enabled free movement of people, wares, money, services. In the thousands of years that European culture has existed, there never was an as peaceful time as we have right now inside the EU.
IMHO: The EU is our last best hope for peace, as one of your previous presidents, Lincoln, put it so aptly. If peace should fail, it will be our last best hope for victory. Because peace by appeasing tyrants is a fool’s paradise.
It’s about democracy and sovereignty. Let’s say a EU member internationally votes 51% in favor of implementing socialism. Because of the EU membership, it would not be possible to implement due to regulations outside of a single country’s control, and EU is famously very capitalistic in general.
One non-extreme example in my country Sweden is that EU is threatening to make snus (i.e. oral tobacco product which zyn is based on) illegal, despite it being widely used and arguably a way more healthy nicotine product than cigarettes. Currently, Sweden has an exemption from the snus ban, but that exemption is not guaranteed for the future.
Also, if extreme right-wing forces grow stronger (which they currently are doing), it could result in EU policy regarding limiting lgbt rights or other horrible right-wing policies, despite a given country’s elected politicians not being of a right-wing majority.
But that holds true on a national level as well. I never understand how national states are somehow the ‘natural order’ of the world.
Let’s say a city in Sweden wants to do something against Swedish national law. Isn’t that the same about “democracy and sovereignity” when it’s not allowed for them?
It’s about democracy and sovereignty. Let’s say a EU member internationally votes 51% in favor of implementing socialism. Because of the EU membership, it would not be possible to implement due to regulations outside of a single country’s control, and EU is famously very capitalistic in general.
Not always getting what you want sometimes is democracy though. The alternative is not getting what you want ever, because the government exists to serve the interests of a certain group that most likely doesn’t include you.
If it wasn’t for the constitution, Texas and Florida would probably hold an election to bring back human slavery, then call it “democratic and sovereign” because they got enough votes from the evil fucks that live there.
Countries have a veto power for most important decisions, precisely to avoid what you described, and for many other things you need a qualified mayority (something like 80% of countries and 80% of population, 9r something like that).
It’s about democracy and sovereignty. Let’s say a EU member internationally votes 51% in favor of implementing socialism. Because of the EU membership, it would not be possible to implement due to regulations outside of a single country’s control, and EU is famously very capitalistic in general.
One non-extreme example in my country Sweden is that EU is threatening to make snus (i.e. oral tobacco product which zyn is based on) illegal, despite it being widely used and arguably a way more healthy nicotine product than cigarettes. Currently, Sweden has an exemption from the snus ban, but that exemption is not guaranteed for the future.
Also, if extreme right-wing forces grow stronger (which they currently are doing), it could result in EU policy regarding limiting lgbt rights or other horrible right-wing policies, despite a given country’s elected politicians not being of a right-wing majority.
With all due respect, this sounds like a bunch of the US confederacy bickering I was just seeing in the Ken Burns Revolutionary War documentary.
Of course no country wants to be forced to conform to stuff, but honestly… deal with it. Being able to act as a single body without constant vetoing and infighting and reinventing the wheel is worth it for having to follow a few laws you don’t like.
And if set up well, right wingers shouldn’t be able to deprive your country of rights, as is largely the case in the US. Most violations here are with the state’s consent, with a few exceptions where we leaned waaay too far into federal control. Unfortunately (and ironically), the extremists of both parties want less state sovereignty when they’re in power, but I don’t think that applies to EU politics.
I’m not particularly fond of my country being a member of EU, but I can’t help but to be pro-EU when he’s against it.
Yeah, just look at Brexit. This really has improved life in the UK.
So if one country fails with something, it means that it should never be attempted? This sounds like “you like communism? look at Venezuela”.
It’s different because here the Britons got exactly what they wanted in the way they wanted it and now they are sad about the monumental consequences of their choice. Calling Venezuela communist is like calling China a democracy, because there’s “voting”.
You’re choosing to ignore other countries which has left the EU and focusing on one example. Interesting. Wonder why that could be?
The other countries?
UK is the only full country that’s actually left the Eu.
The only other entities to leave the EU were:
Algeria (Once they gained independence from France they automatically lost membership)
Greenland (they wanted more fishing rights once Denmark gave them home rule)
Two islands with a combined population of 15000.
And the later 3 are still part of the OCT so they’re still semi members.
Only Britain left the EU. No other country left the EU ever.
It’s more like “you like communism? Look at every single time it has been attempted (on a scale bigger than a village)”.
Please tell me more about how every country that has withdrawn from EU has failed
What downsides are there to EU membership? Asking as an ignorant American
As a Brit, the benefits of being in were far higher than being out.
Genuinely, every country has profited massively from EU membership. “United in Diversity” is a fitting motto. The EU is greater than just the sum of their parts. The EU has enabled unprecedented economic prosperity throughout the continent. It has enabled free movement of people, wares, money, services. In the thousands of years that European culture has existed, there never was an as peaceful time as we have right now inside the EU.
IMHO: The EU is our last best hope for peace, as one of your previous presidents, Lincoln, put it so aptly. If peace should fail, it will be our last best hope for victory. Because peace by appeasing tyrants is a fool’s paradise.
It’s about democracy and sovereignty. Let’s say a EU member internationally votes 51% in favor of implementing socialism. Because of the EU membership, it would not be possible to implement due to regulations outside of a single country’s control, and EU is famously very capitalistic in general.
One non-extreme example in my country Sweden is that EU is threatening to make snus (i.e. oral tobacco product which zyn is based on) illegal, despite it being widely used and arguably a way more healthy nicotine product than cigarettes. Currently, Sweden has an exemption from the snus ban, but that exemption is not guaranteed for the future.
Also, if extreme right-wing forces grow stronger (which they currently are doing), it could result in EU policy regarding limiting lgbt rights or other horrible right-wing policies, despite a given country’s elected politicians not being of a right-wing majority.
But that holds true on a national level as well. I never understand how national states are somehow the ‘natural order’ of the world.
Let’s say a city in Sweden wants to do something against Swedish national law. Isn’t that the same about “democracy and sovereignity” when it’s not allowed for them?
Not always getting what you want sometimes is democracy though. The alternative is not getting what you want ever, because the government exists to serve the interests of a certain group that most likely doesn’t include you.
If it wasn’t for the constitution, Texas and Florida would probably hold an election to bring back human slavery, then call it “democratic and sovereign” because they got enough votes from the evil fucks that live there.
Countries have a veto power for most important decisions, precisely to avoid what you described, and for many other things you need a qualified mayority (something like 80% of countries and 80% of population, 9r something like that).
Why, out of curiosity?
Honestly, from the outside, most every European problem I read about seems to be rooted in a lack of coordination with neighboring countries.
And for all the tire fire that America is, the federal system saves a whole lot of cross-state bickering and trouble.
It’s about democracy and sovereignty. Let’s say a EU member internationally votes 51% in favor of implementing socialism. Because of the EU membership, it would not be possible to implement due to regulations outside of a single country’s control, and EU is famously very capitalistic in general.
One non-extreme example in my country Sweden is that EU is threatening to make snus (i.e. oral tobacco product which zyn is based on) illegal, despite it being widely used and arguably a way more healthy nicotine product than cigarettes. Currently, Sweden has an exemption from the snus ban, but that exemption is not guaranteed for the future.
Also, if extreme right-wing forces grow stronger (which they currently are doing), it could result in EU policy regarding limiting lgbt rights or other horrible right-wing policies, despite a given country’s elected politicians not being of a right-wing majority.
With all due respect, this sounds like a bunch of the US confederacy bickering I was just seeing in the Ken Burns Revolutionary War documentary.
Of course no country wants to be forced to conform to stuff, but honestly… deal with it. Being able to act as a single body without constant vetoing and infighting and reinventing the wheel is worth it for having to follow a few laws you don’t like.
And if set up well, right wingers shouldn’t be able to deprive your country of rights, as is largely the case in the US. Most violations here are with the state’s consent, with a few exceptions where we leaned waaay too far into federal control. Unfortunately (and ironically), the extremists of both parties want less state sovereignty when they’re in power, but I don’t think that applies to EU politics.