
Member of The European Union - matthewrudy
https://gowers.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/6172/
======
RcouF1uZ4gsC
By this logic, wouldn't the most logical thing be for the EU members to all
petition to join the United States of America as states (USAE - United States
of America and Europe)?

After all, would this group not have much more influence than even the EU? In
addition, there is a strong tradition of subsidiarity in the United States
(see states rights).

I think most Europeans would be horrified of joining the United States. Why?
Because there is not enough shared identity.

The United States works because the shared American identity is very strong.
Even if I live in Iowa, my identity is more strongly American than Iowan. This
American identity was forged through centuries of migration and assimilation
(i.e. the Westward expansion where people would leave their state to go out
West but would still be American) and in fighting and dying together alongside
fellow Americans in the various wars over the years.

While the elite of Europe may have a stronger European identity than that of
their country of citizenship, what you are seeing with the recent polls and
movements in Europe is that for many of the common people, their national
identity is stronger than their European identity. This is to be expected as
for many of these countries, the national identity was forged over hundreds of
years, while the modern European identity is only a few decades old.

Thus, for many people, they see the European identity as seeking to assert
primacy over their national identity and they are wanting out.

~~~
vidarh
> the national identity was forged over hundreds of years

While that is true for some European countries, for a very substantial part of
Europe the "national identity" was invented out of nothing during the romantic
nationalism period [1] inspired by Rousseau and Hegel, starting in the late
1700's, but which came to its head in Europe in the late 1800's, coinciding
with the creation of several of the modern European nations.

For many others, their modern day European nations are much younger than even
that.

You are probably right that most Europeans identify mostly with their nation,
but for large parts of Europe that identity was invented by an intellectual
and economical elite in the same way that the idea of a united Europe is being
woven together strand by strand now. Whether not it succeeds will remain to be
seen, but the very existence of most modern European states is the evidence of
how this same state-building exercise has worked in Europe once before.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Correct. However, the context for this decision was in regards to Brexit.
British and more specifically English identity is probably the strongest
national identity in Europe ( French and Swiss identity would be the only
other ones that are similar in strength). These ones I mentioned are also some
of the oldest identities in Europe

British since 1600s James I, English Since at least the Tudors in the 1500s,
French Since the Hundred Years' War in the 1400s, Swiss also since the
1300-1400s

These counties have around 500+ years of shares identity.

~~~
vidarh
British identity is extremely weak - even in England, there's been a decades
long decline in the number of people who consider themselves British first and
foremost. As it stands, a tiny minority in the UK - England included see
themselves as only British, and I believe a minority now see British as the
most important part of their identity.

The only thing "saving" the British identity, is the weakness of the English
national identity.

That English is one of the _oldest_ established national identities in Europe,
I'll buy, but in the last twenty years there's been a lot of agonising in
England over how weak the English identity is in many respects.

E.g. England does not have an official national anthem (God Save the Queen is
the anthem of the UK), or really any day where people celebrate being English.
The flag is amongst many English people seen as a bit of an embarrassment
hijacked by far right groups and football fans. Unlike the other home nations,
England does not have a parliament of its own, and so on.

A lot of the rest is tied to a UK identity that has steadily faded after the
collapse of the British Empire.

In a way the English national identity is in crisis because England let itself
become the UK in a way that Scotland and Wales did not, and as a result both
identities have been watered down.

It's clear that there is still some sort of a cultural identity in England,
and wider in the UK, but it is an identity that in most respect appears to be
in decline.

In a sense I would be more inclined to buy that this perception of the decline
is feeding into the fear of the EU in some groups. Few people in most other
European nations would be likely to fear the disappearance of their national
identity, but the UK has seen the slow slide towards the disintegration of the
country itself, and have to face a shared identity that has been steadily
weakening for decades, all the while at least in England there is little to
take its place.

------
rhaps0dy
>Many people think that a country is better off if its workers are decently
paid, do not work excessively long hours, and work in a safe environment. (If
you are sufficiently right wing, then you may disagree, but that just means
that you will need other examples to illustrate the abstract principle.)

Would it be possible to resist stabs at the "other side" of politics, if you
are trying to explain something? People in the other side will be distracted
by this, and think less of the author, or (like me) think it's a misguided or
untrue example.

~~~
tcard
I don't think this is misguided at all. I've heard right-wing people say work
hours should be an employee-employer agreement that shouldn't concern the
government. The author argues, quite civically in my opinion, that one can
disagree with this particular example but that shouldn't interfere with the
main point.

~~~
faide
I think what OP is getting at is that you can drop the "if you are [side of
the political spectrum]-leaning, then..." clause and lose nothing substantive
from the argument. It's there exclusively to poke at the opposition while
adding nothing of value.

~~~
rblatz
It also doesn't help that he sets the tone of the article by patting himself
on the back about how modern and sophisticated he is, with a bilingual family
of academics that are citizens of the world.

~~~
grosun
It's only back-patting if you take it that way. Is he supposed to deny his own
personal circumstances, or the notion that they'll have an effect on his
outlook? Of course things like that shape the way you're likely to view the
world, and surely it's best to be upfront about it. To my ears, it didn't come
across as boastful at all.

------
rrggrr
Gower's thesis ignores the rent-seeking, grabbing hand of government. Yes,
many government policies are defensible, if not desirable, when framed for the
common good, common ideals, common values, etc.

But we know that many policies only advance the interests of those in
government, their friends and those who hold power of politicians. The
grabbing hand of government engages in rent-seeking at the local level,
federal level, and the common body level; and at each step the citizen in
Leeds or London is further removed from the policy-maker.

Against all the arguments to remain in the Euro-zone, there is this
argument... Its not enough for capital, people and ideas to be free to travel
physical borders. There must be sufficient sovereign diversity that they can
travel to countries where there is less institutional resistance to a status
quo that keeps them from flourishing.

Even better if they do not have to travel anywhere to flourish because the
people chose to exit a restrictive, occasionally repressive federation.

~~~
jamespo
Can you please give examples of these reprehensible policies?

~~~
CamperBob2
See any recent article about Venezuela.

~~~
jamespo
When did they join the EU?

~~~
CamperBob2
What did the OP say that was genuinely specific to the EU?

------
fixermark
It feels a little like there should be a simple, rational argument from
politics and economics for retaining the EU as a single unit.

"The world markets are dominated by a few forces. One is a country with the
bulk of the world's population; its population is about sixteen times the
population of the most populous European country. Another is a single country
with territory approximately fifteen times the square mileage of the largest
single European nation. Unifying the voices of all people in Europe under one
political entity doesn't zero out the playing field, but it may very well
decrease the absurd order-of-magnitude scales of difference between political
entities as these two juggernauts stomp inexorably towards their desired world
order while the individual nations of Europe debate their own individual
selfish interests."

But people aren't often rational about national ties.

~~~
Grue3
Poor Switzerland. It's small, has relatively low population, and not in a
union with any other country. Moreover, everyone has guns. And yet, it's one
of the most (if not the most) prosperous countries in Europe.

~~~
prodmerc
Switzerland is my example of the best case scenario for the UK if they leave.

A haven for corporations/money, a good government that cares about the people,
still open borders, still free trade with the EU, no say in anything they do.

But that's if the UK manages it well - I don't see that happening, corps will
just jump over to Ireland, NHS is under heavy pressure, tariffs are still high
(not because of the EU, but in spite, just look at food prices), wages rather
low...

It will do alright, but not better I think...

~~~
DasIch
Open borders is why the Brexit people want to leave in the first place.

They're not going to want to leave just to do a EFTA/EEA type deal. Which
means opening borders to the EU, adopting EU regulation, paying the EU and
having no say within the EU all to get access to the single market.

~~~
vidarh
I agree they'll be bitterly disappointed if they end up with an EEA type deal,
but despite that they keep using Norway a an example of how you can manage
well outside the EU. Ignoring that Norway is almost as integrated as the UK is
- in some ways more (part of Schengen).

In the case of Brexit, I predict a rush from the pro-EU contingent in
parliament to get an EEA style deal in place before the next elections.

~~~
DasIch
The pro-EU contingent would certainly push for that but then the UK would be
basically in the same situation they're in now. It's one thing not to have a
voice within the EU in your imagination, it's a different thing really not to
have one.

I think that what's really going to happen is that this will goes the same way
all these independence movements go, they'll vote to remain in the end. It's
one thing to imagine yourself as independent and I can see how it might be
appealing but taking a step over the edge into the realm of uncertainty is not
a comfortable or very human thing to do.

~~~
vidarh
> The pro-EU contingent would certainly push for that but then the UK would be
> basically in the same situation they're in now.

And that's exactly why it is likely to push for it. And given that there's a
solid pro-EU majority in parliament, it's likely that getting a deal as
comprehensive as possible with the EU will be high priority, similar to how it
was for Norway after the no vote in the referendum, where the EEA was used as
a "consolation price" by the pro-EU parties.

They will argue that they have a strong mandate to do so, given that the Leave
campaign have kept bringing up Norway as an example of how the UK can do fine
outside the EU...

I do hope the UK votes to remain - I'm Norwegian, living in the UK. Though it
won't affect me personally that much, as I qualify for leave to remain under
at least three different categories. I agree with you that a good chunk of
voters will end up voting remain even if they may be thinking of leaving now.
The question is just if it will be enough.

------
seomis
I thought this was going to be about set theory.

------
danmaz74
> Similarly, a little while ago I heard a fisherman talking about how his
> livelihood suffered as a result of EU fishing quotas, and how he hoped that
> Britain would leave the EU and let him fish more. He didn’t put it quite
> that crudely, but that was basically what he was saying. And yet without
> quotas, the fishing stock would rapidly decline and that very same
> fisherman’s livelihood would vanish completely.

The problem wouldn't just be the fishing stock disappearing. The UK fisherman
could start a pricing war with EU fishermen, and that would be followed by an
import tariffs war, which would for sure expand to other sectors. The end
result? Not good for the EU, but even worse for the UK.

------
UK-AL
So you want the EU to intentionally cripple the UK's competitiveness in order
to work towards your own moral values which maybe right or wrong? Though in
these particular cases my values are aligned with yours. However there are
many cases where peoples values differ. You are using the supremacy EU laws to
force your values on to them.

If these values are truly universal there is nothing stopping you getting some
form of treaty between all these countries anyway outside of the eu. Leaving
other things more open.

It's a very simple individuals/small groups vs large groups issue. There are
two ways to resolve it. Allow each individual to make their own decision about
it, or take a side and force your values on to everyone.

Companies treat workers well because they have to compete to get them. Not
because the government forces their hand. There's always a way around
government regulation, so it's not really effective. There's always loop hole.
So why do companies offer workers good conditions? Because they are forced to
by competition. You solve the issues of companies treating workers badly by
developing a surging economy not by laws.

These 3rd world countries with sweatshops have actually gotten better
standards then what came before. As spare capacity decreases companies are
forced to offer better conditions. You can see this now, where in china
companies are going elsewhere because workers demanding a lot more.

Tax argument only works if you think government is more efficient with money
in the first place.

~~~
europeansoft
> Companies treat workers well because they have to compete to get them. Not
> because the government forces their hand.

There is nothing keeping them from colluding to keep wages down then. Apart
from the government, that is...

~~~
kazinator
Not only keeping wages down, but imposing long work hours and poor work
conditions: unsafe, unhealthful. Not to mention employing children who ought
to be in school. It's legislation which prevents such abuses.

------
pithic
The problem with supra-nations is that, as bigger monopolies on government,
they are much harder to vote against with your feet. You know, in case they
become captured by special interests and impose burdensome taxes, oppressive
laws, and smothering regulations.

------
bitL
If we had algorithmic laws that would adapt to situation at any given time,
then having a non-profit organization managing them could be beneficial. But
when the bureaucracy in Brussels is strikingly similar to the one in Moscow
during its "glory" days, I am not so sure we really need that. What we have
now is that all politicians the member states wanted to get rid of due to
their incompetence and other vices, end up in Brussels. You can gauge the
quality of representatives from this.

As for potential Brexit, what would happen is that GB would enter TTIP earlier
than other EU countries and get a deeper integration with US much earlier. So
in a way it could give UK an edge (if TTIP proves in any way beneficial to UK
and not only to US). The main industry is anyway financial; once TTIP is
signed between EU and USA there won't be much in the way of UK either.

~~~
mprovost
Obama explicitly called out that if the UK leaves the EU, that it would be at
the "back of the queue" for trade deals. There's much less incentive for the
US to work on a treaty with a smaller country like the UK as opposed to the
entire EU.

~~~
Wintamute
The UK is the world's 5th largest economy, in reality it wouldn't be in either
party's interests to send it to the back of the queue. Add on to that that the
UK would have a much more flexible negotiating position outside the EU, as
well as a powerful political mandate to quickly sort out new deals post
Brexit.

~~~
vidarh
It's not going to be the world's 5th largest for long. Growth is anaemic,
while a long list of fast growing countries is coming up behind it.

My expectation is that the UK government after a Brexit would rush to try to
get an EEA style deal in place, and end up having to give up more to get that
than to remain in the UK.

------
mathgenius
I'd like to see more mathematicians / scientists stick their neck out like
this. Too often these people hide behind castle walls, because they have been
taught to stay in their own speciality. Yes, it is quite likely that they will
make a rookie mistake, but they will also learn at a fantastic rate.

------
scottmsul
One problem I have with this argument is that personal freedom isn't taken
into account. Every time a decision is moved up one subsidiarity level,
members at lower levels sacrifice a little bit of freedom.

For example, suppose the EU recognizes that gas-consuming vehicles contribute
to climate change. From a utilitarian standpoint, it makes sense to ban all
cars unless the economic advantage from driving outweighs the ecological
damage from climate change. So perhaps the EU should ban all cars by default,
but allow citizens to fill out a petition every time they need to drive.
Except this is ridiculous, because we shouldn't need permission to drive. This
is an assumed basic liberty (of course drivers should still pass a driver's
test to get a license, but this only needs to be done once).

I think the utilitarian argument can still hold, but only if personal freedom
is taken into account. It should be weighed like everything else, and
recognized as a tradeoff. The United States allows freedom of speech, in
exchange for giving people the right to post hateful comments online. The
utilitarian might argue this is a bad thing, since society might be better off
if hateful speech was removed from the internet. But in this case, I
personally believe the benefits of freedom outweigh the drawbacks of offensive
speech.

Every time a higher authority recognizes a prisoner's dilemma and enforces a
rule, they are forbidding the players from playing the game themselves. Even
if the societal benefits outweigh the drawbacks, there are hidden costs
associated with sacrificing freedom.

------
cja
The EU is protectionist, weakens democracy, removes decision making from the
populace, is barely accountable, is mysterious (most citizens don't even know
who their MEPs are, let alone how the EU government works) and is a paradise
for lobbyists.

It pretends (at least to the anti-federalist British) to be a big family of
European nations, protecting human rights and stronger together than apart.
This is the fantasy we are sold by our politicians.

In reality the EU is a project to create a single European state. This is not
hidden in France, Belgium or Germany, only in the UK.

Also, the EU has created circumstances very friendly to big companies. The
remoteness of the lawmaking process from the people makes it easy for
lobbyists to have considerable influence over it. And the free movement of
labour allows the mass movement of cheap labour from poor countries to rich
countries, causing problems in the source and destination problems.

------
dominiek
I am a Dutch person and I’ve lived abroad for about half of my adult life in
places like Japan and USA. I identify myself as both a Dutchman and a
European. Just two weeks ago I shared a beer with an unknown Frenchman while
watching the Eurocup in an Irish Pub while rooting for his country
(Netherlands did not qualify). I am European and I love Europe. The things I
miss most about home are my friends in Amsterdam (many of which have different
nationalities) and I miss European food (the seasonal stuff you find in small
villages in Southern Europe).

Even though I have these strong feelings towards Europe, I am against the EU
as a super-state. I have been a “Euro Skeptic” ever since I started reading
about liberty and became a libertarian. Unfortunately, being a Euro Skeptic
and/or believing in smaller governments gets you cast into the “Right-wing
Nutbag” camp in Europe (even by my own parents).

A lot of “Remainians” have strong personal feelings towards Europe just like
me. They’ve benefited from some EU initiative at a university, or perhaps they
married a fellow European person. Also, they enjoy the benefits of the
Schengen treaty, being able to travel and settle freely - without spending
years of legal fees and stress on immigration like me. All of these things can
be accomplished by treaties and standards without a monolithic EU super
nation. Trade and treaties (like Shengen) are great, and they are perfectly
achievable without an EU super state).

There are countless of arguments around the democracy and economics of the EU,
but at the end of the day the EU is an idealistic construct. It was created
with noble intensions to create peace on a warn-torn continent - accelerated
quickly after the fall of the Berlin Wall (to address a strong and unified
Germany).

Yet once again, the idealism of Europe (and in my opinion the disregard for
the fundamentals of liberty) is creating a new cycle of instability on the
continent. Whether there’s going to be a Brexit or Bremain, a storm is coming.

------
mattmanser
I think the supranational organisations argument is a bad argument to make
given that throughout the world everyone else is devolving, and splitting into
smaller countries or presently trying to split off.

Off the top of my head, countries/peoples recently or actively trying to split
or setting up a new regional government, several that are actually in the EU:

    
    
        Czechoslovakia
        Yugoslavia
        Catalan
        Scotland
        Wales
        N. Ireland
        The Kurds
    

I'm sure there are many more as I really don't keep up with African or South
American politics.

So why is everywhere else in the world seemingly moving to devolution, apart
from Europe which is trying to create a super-state out of very, very
different peoples.

And I _know_ that they're very different. I'm half-dutch, half-english, my Dad
lives in France, I've been to Belgium, Spain, Italy and Germany. Each of these
peoples have very different outlooks. And the Germans, quite alarmingly as one
of the key leaders of this change, still consider themselves more German than
global citizens[1] compared to other countries. And don't misinterpret this,
nothing to do with Nazis, everything to do in that they're obviously not doing
it out of a love for the EU.

So why the need for the super state? Look at what happened to poor old Spain
and Greece being forced into what is now a very disparate economic
relationship with Germany, the Germans have even effectively rescinded
Greece's national economic decision making.

There don't seem to be any rational arguments coming out of either camp, and
of all the arguments, the "supranational organisation" one has got to be the
most ridiculous. To make it a quasi-mathematical one is even more absurd as
our countries have much better labor laws than America which is bound by
exactly that sort of organisation, and we had the bulk of them before the EU
was involved. The Social Democracies of the EU came way before the EU even
existed, before the EC, before the EEC. Before the EU we certainly didn't have
zero-hour contracts, so there's clear evidence his quasi-mathematical
arguments don't hold water.

And I say this all as a pro-remain. Posts like this honestly don't help
because they are partisan bullshit dressed up as 'logic' with little in the
way of facts.

[1]
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-36139904](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-36139904)

~~~
rmc
Very few groups in N. Ireland are trying to set up their own N. Ireland
state/government. People either want in with one country or the other.

~~~
mattmanser
I didn't quite mean that in their case, they've devolved powers from a
national level to a regional level, the opposite of what the EU is doing:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Assembly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Assembly)

I appreciate it's sensitive and in reality it's a compromise.

The Welsh & Scots have have both devolved too though.

[http://gov.wales/](http://gov.wales/)

[http://www.parliament.scot/](http://www.parliament.scot/)

There's even talk of devolution for the North of England.

EDIT: I think this highlights the ridiculous nature of the argument, these
countries want to vote on their own future, have self-determination. They're
not voting remain for the maastricht treaty's removal of national power,
they're all doing exactly the opposite of that at the moment. The main reason
the Welsh, Scots + Irish are voting stay is because the EU gives them a lot
more money than the London-centric Westminster (and I certainly don't blame
them for that!). It's incredibly inconsistent and yet totally understandable.

------
clarkmoody
_In the abstract, the case for supranational organizations is almost too
obvious to be worth making: just as it often benefits individual people to
form groups and agree to restrict their behaviour in certain ways, so it can
benefit nations to join groups and agree to restrict their behaviour in
certain ways._

But nations aren't anything more than collections of people. Nations, like
societies and governments, cannot _do_ anything. Rather, the people within are
the ones taking action.

Supernational organizations that constrain member states without the consent
of the citizens of those states are just another form of tyranny.

You don't need giant bureaucracies to have free trade or free movement of
people (or prosperity, for that matter).

------
Qantourisc
Personally my biggest beef with the EU seems to be the lack of optional
participation.

Some rules just work better if applied to the entire EU, but it's not
essential for a lot of rules. Example the vacuum cleaners: do we seriously
need these things enforced from the EU?

There are of course rules that would require everyone to participate to work.

Also IMO a country should be able select which parts of the EU they wish to
participate in: monetary, military, schengen zone, product safety rules (and
thus easy in and export...), ...

~~~
sitic
If I would build vacuum cleaners, I would rather build one type and sell it in
28 different nations then producing 28 different models.

When I want to buy a vacuum cleaner, I want a good choice between different
models and good prices.

So whats wrong with the EU regulating vacuum cleaners in a common market?

~~~
Qantourisc
The only thing wrong with is the enforcement, at which point do you value
sovereignty over common market ?

(Everyone should still implement this of course.)

But having the ability to say no is still nice.

About the models, well normally most countries will apply the rule anyway, as
such the vacuum cleaners you will be able to get will conform anyway.

(And the vacuum cleaners was an example.)

Bus as stated it's mainly about sovereignty versus unity. Also I am not sure
if optional parts would help keep the EU together: on one side you feel less
forced, and more invested. On the other side it diminishes to effectiveness of
it.

And I think I mainly fear the EU becoming the the USA. I do not think many
people in the EU are keen on seeing that happen.

------
weddpros
read David Ellis for sound and clear counter-arguments

[https://davidellis2.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/reflections-
on-...](https://davidellis2.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/reflections-on-latex-in/)

------
atmosx
I agree with the ideas this post tries to perpetuate, but it’s written as if
the author lives in a different reality. Post 2008, the EU has been the mother
of all evil for PIIGS and non-PIIGS too.

> In the abstract, the case for supranational organizations is almost too
> obvious to be worth making: […]

Most Euro-sceptics, myself included, do not see the EU as a “supranational
organisation” that is for my best interest. What I see is a body of non-
elected puppets, taking important decisions about my life, mishandling crisis
after crisis (debt crisis, Ukraine, Syria, etc.), the French sitting quietly
while Germany abuses everyone.

The EU is deeply, deeply undemocratic. There are no published discussions of
the Eurogroup. So basically a finance minister goes there, comes back with new
laws but there’s nothing published on paper or broadcasted about who said what
and why.

Every time an anti-popular law is passed, it’s because of “the EU” as if the
EU was something abstract (exactly as this post describes) in which we, the
people, have no say. So if we really have no say, why on earth would be
support that? Because the opposite is worst? Sorry but this ain’t gonna cut
it.

The EU have not solved the basic macro-economic problems that every union or
federal country has like surplus recycling: You can’t have Germany with huge
surplus without having Greece with a huge pile of debt! You just can’t! It’s
macro 0101.

Why do you think that every time a referendum has been to called in relation
to the EU (France, Netherlands, Greece and now the UK) the anti-EU choice has
dominated. I mean the EU is turning unpopular even in Germany which is the
country who profited most because of the single currency. That was expected
because it's the biggest exporting power in Europe, so it has a surplus vis-a-
vis with EVERY state that can't devalue.

There is something fundamentally broken within the EU. The Germans are clearly
unfit to lead while the French are too weak to react when it matters the most
and others simply don't count. The whole is going to blow up for sure.

Would you rather have 50 EUR and be able to decide what to do with 'em or 500
EUR but another country telling what to do with them?

Now Prof. Varoufakis, which I admire deeply, believes that what comes after a
break-up is an even greater depression and possibly war. I don’t like this
narrative, not a bit, but I don’t see how we can avoid it by staying within
the EU.

The fact that we have neo-nazis in the Greek parliament, extreme right wing
rising in Austria, France and Hungary is not pure chance. It’s the result of
EU policies promoting unemployment, stagnation and hatred.

So until the EU starts resembling more like a union and less like a bullying
squad, there’s no chance.

[1] That was the exact words Scheuble used to explain Varoufakis that Greece
should continue with austerity “as is” although it was clearly visible that
everything in the Greek program was wrong.

------
amelius
Now try to explain that to the average voter :)

------
swalsh
I upvoted this on accident, a one letter title requires extreme clicking
precision. I think HN should force a min title length.

~~~
spacehome
First World Problems.

------
sgnelson
Could the title of this article be any less informative?

~~~
RodericDay
I like the dual reference to Euro and set membership

~~~
pmontra
And the E in the CE marking
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_marking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_marking)

The Euro sign has one more dash €. Maybe the author intentionally left some
ambiguity in the title.

~~~
spacehome
Speaking as a math major, I didn't see any ambiguity at all.

------
putzdown
People are generally selfish and lazy. We act in immediately efficient ways
even if those ways have high long-term costs—balloon payments and so forth. We
do this individually and we do it when we band together in companies and
nations.

At the extremes, there are two ways to deal with selfishness and laziness. You
can let it go, allowing people to make their own choices and face their own
consequences, hoping they'll have enough foresight to avoid ballooning
dangers. In economics and government this is generally associated with
"conservative" politics. Or you can control people through rule-making and
enforcement, preventing them from making choices they should know will end up
bad and forcing them to take the right actions. This is associated
with—somewhat unexpectedly—the "liberal" approach.

It's pretty clear that either extreme is a bad choice. Pure conservatism
allows the wealthy and powerful few to exploit the oppressed many, the large
corporation to crush the individual, the effective short-term competitor to
ignore long-term costs to self and others. Pure liberalism crushes individual
choice, presumes the wise choice of those who rule, sustains complex legal and
enforcement systems, and adds the profound inefficiency of government to the
many expenses a society must bear.

Yet anything in between the two extremes is difficult. Ambiguity abounds. No
single choice for a conservative or liberal approach—in health care, for
example, or gun control, or airport security, or child rearing—is clearly
correct and without serious downsides. People are difficult. Living together
is hard.

If there is a clear error, therefore, it is an over-enthusiasm for one extreme
or the other, an over-pessimism for the other side of the aisle.

What's more, one's own self-bias is all but impossible to see. This article
begins with pretensions of objectivity that the author compares, if vaguely,
to mathematics, yet the bias of the author shines through unmistakable. He
searches for objective premises from which to argue, yet even the way he
frames the questions, even the premises he chooses to expound all but
guarantee his conclusions.

And so here we are: difficult people, trying to live together, discussing—or
pretending to—how best to do so, yet choked full of our own biases and
unwilling (because we are selfish and lazy) to really hear the other side. And
that's too bad, because the right answer is surely a blend, a case-by-case
blend, of freedom and legislation.

When you compare the laws of the EU to nations contemporary and historical, I
think it's pretty clear that it skews liberal and that there is a great deal
of legislation: legislation "for their own good." It's possible that the EU
has good legislation, a good _amount_ of legislation, and that it is effective
in enforcing that legislation such that the member nations have done, are
doing, and will do better than they would without the union. (Not just
economically better but morally, ecologically, etc.—whatever values we ought
to care about. Though that's not clear.) But it also reasonable to wonder
whether the EU is incorrectly skewed toward too much legislation, or of the
wrong kind, or with bad enforcement, so that the member nations, or perhaps a
single member nation, would do "better" (by some sound standard) removing
itself from these laws. It helps in making these speculations that the EU,
after all, is quite new in historical terms; Britons can look back even in
their own memories and know what life without the EU might look like. There's
no going back really, of course, but there is some historical basis for
speculation. They can also look at their own values and culture and look for
broad compatibilities or incompatibilities that might bode well or ill for the
ongoing relationship.

It seems to me that the choice comes down to those kinds of questions. Were
Britons better off before the EU, and if so, do they have a reasonable chance
of returning, post-EU, to a similar or better situation? Is the rule of the EU
over the UK, considered historically, abnormally invasive, complex, or
incompetent, or is it on the other hand effective in legislation and
enforcement?

So I think it's a historical, not mathematical or even—quite—logical question.

