The enthusiasts need to temper their dreams and expectations - EU is doing fine, and doesn't need to always become more powerful or more integrated. Especially not now, when citizens don't want it.
Citation needed. While there is some anti-European sentiment in all member states those are almost always in the minority. There are a lot of people who want more integration.
Citation needed. The people pushing for more integration are politicians and bureaucrats, not normal people. Most of the EU (indeed most of the Western world) is in a democratic crisis - moving decision-making even further away from citizens by centralizing it in Brussels is only going to exacerbate that, leading to more anti-EU sentiment and more brexits.
>The people pushing for more integration are politicians and bureaucrats, not normal people.
That's simply not true. There are multiple civil society organizations pushing for a closer union. People are voting for parties that are explicitly pro-European.
I don't know who's right but France has some 65M people whereas e.g. Lithuania has 3M people. And France provides 15% of the EU budget whereas (say) Lithuania provides 0.3%. I'm not sure listing all countries on a bar chart as if their opinions have equal impact on the fate of the EU is an accurate way to illustrate the situation?
Would the EU do just fine after losing the UK and a country like France? Would Germans still love the EU so much after they realize they're paying twice as much into the EU as the next country? Maybe you could argue it would, but I guess it seems far from obvious to me.
> Would Germans still love the EU so much after they realize they're paying twice as much into the EU as the next country?
Germans took up way more monetary responsibility during Corona. E.g. they took various patients from Netherlands and paid for the care themself. Same with the financial crisis that was a result of Corona, Germany was happy to help out other countries.
Now if you look at what Netherlands gains out of the EU (so what the EU is worth to NL) it is about 7 to 8 times the net payment. Limiting the net amount paid is good, but the focus on net payment without looking at what you get is quite short sighted.
See e.g. UK where just paying the custom agents will cost an equivalent as the EU payments.
>Would Germans still love the EU so much after they realize they're paying twice as much into the EU as the next country? Maybe you could argue it would, but I guess it seems far from obvious to me.
It would be shameful if we didn't, because helping poorer countries grow is the entire point of these transfer payments. The bigger issue is that there is lots of abuse and it doesn't actually improve the grand picture. Money is nice but only if it's used responsibly. If there was a way to reduce corruption in Eastern European countries they would grow on their own without any transfer payments. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your perspective), that's outside the scope of the EU.
It's the age old "give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish".
Not one of the linked questions from that survey measured whether the respondents wanted more integration between EU countries, only how favorably they viewed the EU. So just to be clear: Those two things are very different. There's a world of difference between wanting more international cooperation (or actually, just liking the current amount of international cooperation) and wanting to give up more sovereignty. I'm not arguing against the EU being viewed favorably by the citizens of the EU - that is indeed generally the case. Case in point, I myself view the EU favorably, yet I'm also very concerned that about the push toward making it more of a supra-national organization (above its member states legally, who have given it sovereignty, and are forced into new deals, even ones its citizens disagree fiercely with) and less of an international organization (a forum for discussion and facilitator of agreements between its member states, who maintain their sovereignty, and are able to opt out of deals they don't want to be in). The people driving this push are indeed politicians and bureaucrats, not the general electorate. And why wouldn't it be - if you asked a normal person on the street "would you prefer that the laws governing your country are made by the politicians in your parliament that you know the names of, and have a say in electing, or primarily by hundreds of politicians from other countries, that might have a completetely different culture than you, and that you have no say in electing?" what do you think the response would be?
One can be pro-EU and still believe in a scaled back union. To say something even more inside the context of my post that you replied to - let's posit 70% are happy with EU now. Does that mean that EU should integrate more? Not necessarily - they might not be so happy after that change.
Not enough to put it to a vote in most countries and it highly depends on the question.
That there should be internal talks about foreign policies is pretty much accepted, also having common environmental policies.
If you suggest a common welfare program, you will quickly find closed doors.
Honestly, I think the support in general is higher with people not interested in politics, aside from the enthusiasts that already dream of a republic.
Speaking of which, why call it the European Union when we could have called it the European Empire. Some things are so obvious...
That is a very good point. Problem is that the enthusiasts are the young people across Europe and not exactly a minority. That is a 50:50 or 60:40 thing.
So when you satisfy on group (good enough) you will make the the other half unhappy.
That is not really accurate. The young people get older as well. And change their world view. Once you hear hundreds of times the "bad" news of immigrants, workers from rumania taking your jobs, etc, experiencing the slowness of evolvement of the EU or just switch to thinking british style (nations do better, europe is only a shared market).
For sure, that is all inaccurate in one way or the other, but people are busy or in bad situations, leaving their enthusiasm behind them.
If it is, why isn't it cracking down more seriously on, say, GDPR violations already? Is giving companies multiple years to adjust still not enough? Or does a serious enforcement of its laws not fall under the umbrella of doing fine (nor sure if pun intended)?
In fact I think EU should take few steps back: the perfect state was before Lisbon treaty, when EU was basically just a free trade zone. Since Lisbon they try to make it a single country, with unified policy on international affairs, military, etc, which doesn't make sense.
I mean that's the crux of the issue, is the EU just a liberal (in the non-american sense) free-trade zone or is it more that that. I personally would like it to be more, but I understand that it's a very controversial topic.
I would say it is the only way it makes sense. The world now belongs to huge nations like USA, China and India. The only way European people can survive with their freedom intact is by banding together.
I think the EU has a very important role to play, like this, but it shouldn't be the case that we have to be an empire to survive - either against other big empires, or mega-corps, both kinds of things have a bit too much power. The mega-corps we can regulate, and (unfortunately) - a powerful EU is needed to do it in this state of the world.
Fascinating, this is such a hot topic which is going to be debated for decades.
I for one think that EU needs to take several steps forward. I personally am for a single country, or how federalists like to say, United States of Europe.
It seems to me like the "best case" scenario geopolitically and economically for EU.
I feel so too but the goals that I want the EU to achieve do not necessarily require a single federation. If they find a different method I'll be happy either way.
Differences in culture are addressed by endless amount talking, compromises, etc. Previously Europe often resorted to war. I highly prefer the current attempt at trying to keep peace.
And appeasement for the sake of technical peace is the problem.
What if Germany and France decides to go for endless talking and compromises to Russia, giving away parts of eastern europe as part of the deal to keep peace?
The EU has never been "just a free trade zone", though.
It has always had a political element.
To quote a 1963 Court of Justice judgment:
"The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of member states, Community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty, but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the Community. "
The EU has never been "just a free trade zone", though.
It has always had a political element.
To quote a 1963 Court of Justice judgment:
"The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of member states, Community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty, but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the Community. "
The trade union, although critical to our modern day understanding of the EU, was actually not the primary goal, it was all about politics, primarily about maintaining peaceful diplomatic relationships between countries. It's just that doing business together is one of the more effective means to be friendly to each other.
