SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Some of the great moments of history sneak up on businesspeople. Two years ago, Britain looked to be Europe's most economically rational country; now its companies seem to be rolling from one economic earthquake to another, with Brexit looking increasingly likely to be followed by the election of a near-Marxist prime minister, Jeremy Corbyn.
Looking back, two things stand out. First, there were some deep underlying "irrational" causes that business ignored, such as the pent-up anger against immigration and globalization. Second, there was a string of short-term political decisions that proved to be miscalculations. For decades, for example, attacking the European Union was a "free hit" for British politicians. If David Cameron had it to do over again, would he really have made the referendum on whether to stay in it a simple majority vote (or indeed called a vote at all)? Does Angela Merkel now regret giving Cameron so few concessions before the Brexit vote? Would the moderate Labour members of Parliament who helped Corbyn get on their party's leadership ballot in the name of political diversity really do that again?
Now, another rupture may be sneaking up on Europe, driven by a similar mixture of pent-up anger and short-term political maneuvering. This one is between the old West European democratic core of the EU, led by Merkel and increasingly by Emmanuel Macron, who are keen to integrate the euro zone, and the populist authoritarians of Eastern Europe, who dislike Brussels. This time the arguments are ones about political freedom and national sovereignty.
Eastern Europe's gripes are nothing a little anschluss couldn't cure.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Friday October 06 2017, @10:40AM (7 children)
The problems with the EU go deeper than that. But they are simply the well-known problems of any large government: larger governments are more remote governments, and are no longer responsive to the actual needs and wishes of their citizens.
Sure, the EU Commission regularly makes pretty horrible proposals. It's entirely clear that the members of the commission are completely owned by existing governmental and corporate interests. The Parliament, for its part, does actually do a reasonable job of representing the population, and has acted to reign in the commission.
But the biggest problem is remoteness. Most of the EU government is the faceless bureaucracy.As with bureaucrats everywhere, the individuals become impressed with their own importance, want to build their little empires, and create masses upon masses of senseless regulations, which have the force of law throughout the EU.
Just as one egregious example: There is an EU regulation concerning cucumbers:. They must have certain dimensions, and there is a strict limit on their curvature. I suppose that the intent of this regulation is to make the cucumbers more uniform, so that they can be more easily transported. But WTF is the government doing, mucking about here? Let the suppliers, the truckers and the grocery stores work it out. And maybe some stores will want the crooked cucumbers, because they can get the at a discount?
Of course, it's purely coincidental that regulations like this favor the big producers, who have ways of making their pleasure tangible to politicians and regulatory agencies. Ahem, /sarc
When you get governments reigning over hundreds of millions of people, they become so remote, so uncontrollable, that there's really no chance of influencing them any more. Smaller governments, closer to the people, are a lot better in this regard.
The best thing that could happen to the EU? Eliminate it, and go back to the common market. Go farther: break up the big countries into loose confederations of smaller regions. Go Catalonia! Go Scotland! Go Texas! Smaller governments work better. At least, if they don't, you know where the politicians live...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @01:09PM
You can go too small.
I would explain why (defense, natural resources, foreign policy), but it would be wasted on you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @01:31PM (3 children)
No, there isn't. There was one, but it was removed almost a decade ago. Indeed, its introduction pre-dates the EU. Its removal was in EU times, though.
So your argument against the EU is based on a former regulation that was introduced before the EU existed, and that was removed by the EU. Great argument.
Sure. Except that it was exactly those who back then asked the EC (not the EU, which didn't yet exist) to introduce that regulation.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @01:57PM (2 children)
I believe that was what is commonly called an example. If you don't like it, there are many other examples from which one can construct an argument.
What are your views on protectionist policies such as import duties on processed coffee intended to protect German food processing? [capx.co] What about the incandescent lightbulb ban which was in service to German and Dutch lightbulb manufacturers with patents on CFLs? CFL bulbs use mercury in the ballasts and were not outright banned under ROHS [europa.eu] despite environmental risk that does not exist with (oxidising) leaded solder and components that were banned for containing only trace amounts of heavy metals. The page I linked should simply state that CFL bulb manufacturers still have patents and are able to lobby the commission while smaller companies are not. At least that would be honest eh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @06:59PM (1 child)
Get up to speed, my right wing brainwashed friend.
CFLs *were* the incandescent replacement technology, but they were replaced years ago by *LED* which has no mercury.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @07:42PM
Left wing. Initial halogen replacements, early adopter of LED's and no CFL's ever. Modern LED's even replaced GaAs with GaN and the lead isn't a problem but don't tell the EU commission.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @07:38PM (1 child)
Yet the Republic of Texas approached the United States asking to be admitted into the Union.
THEY didn't want to remain independent. Ponder why the Texans might have wanted this.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by DECbot on Friday October 06 2017, @08:32PM
To have a bigger stick to keep Mexico out.
The joke is now on them... Federal regulations now encourages Mexicans to live in Texas and Texas is helpless to stop it.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base