It's honestly got to the point where I barely open comments related to EU projects any more. While most of the time there's somewhat nuanced discussions in comments, once the EU gets mentioned for some reason most of the comments basically boil down to "EU bad, US better", and "Big government bad", completely ignoring the actual contents of what the post it about.
The EU is a major world power, like the US and China, which means everyone in the world will have opinions about them, of every level of informedness :)
The US is used to this. The EU still have to adjust.
Forgive me for not taking their opinion about an economic block that they don't seem to understand and that their country doesn't belong to very seriously.
if I was suggesting that they're right to criticise the EU, I would have said that. what I was suggesting was that "America number 1, everyone else turds" is an extremely normal and expected attitude for a lot of Americans, and not something that I would describe as "odd". you seem to have read it differently
I guess the question is, is that level of response what one would expect or hope for in a forum like HN? Maybe we could aspire to a better level of discourse?
Well, as someone who has lived in various parts of the U.S (mainly Utah, Oregon and Northern California), as well as Germany, Denmark, and is married to an Italian: Germans, Danes, and Italians often have a lot of cursorily formed opinions of the U.S, while in the U.S if people have strong opinions about the EU (and not actual familiarity) they are often not just wrong or stupid but also just as often completely unhinged from reality.
I'm guessing this is due to stupidity manifesting in different ways in their respective regions.
Like apparently the UK bring a knife-ridden crime epicentre, when the knife-crime rate is, while unacceptably high, actually rather lower than the US, and that's before you consider guns which are about 10 times more on top of that.
(And let's please at least pretend that the UK is still in the EU for argument's sake :)
It is odd that you believe citizenship demands some kind of absolutist factionalism that is not just felt but continually reinforced using all available media channels.
Pot, meet kettle...seriously though, I don't think many people are inclined to "grow out of" advocating for their own self interests by giving up their freedoms to the state/bureaucracy. As long as there are power dynamics, those on the lower rungs will dare to annoy those on the higher rungs by sticking up for themselves...and vice versa
Perhaps you meant "they will eventually sell their soul" instead?
> There are many concerns about giving a centralized authority more power
> Also, since the EU is a vassal of Pax Americana
So the problem is giving a centralized authority (EU) more power. At the same time the EU is a vassal of the US (Pax America, which is a fairly ridiculous notion in and of itself).
I can only conclude from the horrible word salad you gave me that individual member states without the EU would also be vassals of the US, which is itself a centralized power. So the EU existence, following your logic, is inconsequential.
Your thoughts were mildly entertaining to parse through. Sorry for not giving credence to your thoughts beyond mere entertainment however.
> EU is a vassal of the US (Pax America, which is a fairly ridiculous notion in and of itself).
You don't believe me? Perhaps Pax Americana needs to blow up another one of Europe's oil pipelines to remind you...
I wonder how long the sycophantic politicians can keep up the act before the freezing & unemployed citizens notice.
Here's a word of advice though, don't give the Nazis too many weapons. It may end up in a bad situation. They may hate Putin today, but tomorrow their prerogatives may change...
For the record, this is a standard Russian talking point. Stepan Bandera was a nationalist Ukrainian leader and his remembrance is one of the reasons why Russian propaganda now paints Ukraine as Nazified.
"War is terrible."
Indeed, and being absorbed into the Russian World is even more terrible. I get it, the Kremlin isn't exactly winning on the battlefield right now, so it tries to undermine the will to fight among its opponents. Nazis, Peace Now etc., the standard Russian word salad.
No, you are not getting Ukraine, forget it. That invasion was a bridge too far and Russia will lose badly. Good. I will never forget nor forgive the Soviet rape of Czechoslovakia in 1968, but Russian defeat in the Ukrainian war will at least somewhat soothe the bitterness.
Interesting that my anti-war reply gets flagged over here. Can't have anyone critical of wars allowed to speak out. Nor can certain extremist ideological movements with a history of mass destruction, whose current activities are well documented, be acknowledged. I believe that answers your question...
Sure...We should not support wars where many people die & we should choose diplomacy instead. We should not funnel arms to violent ideological extremists as well. One of these extremist groups calls themself "The Right Sector". Many members of "The Right Sector" have tattoos that are Nazi symbols, hold large tiki torch marches, & have publicly proclaimed Nazi ideology. Do I dare mention the over 16000 civilians killed (many of which are children) in the Donbas after the 2014 coup in Kiev?
My opinion is, you know, "right wing libertarian stuff". I must be off my rocker...So must Vice & the various other media outlets that extensively reported on this over the past decade.
```
Brenton Tarrant, who massacred 51 worshipers at a mosque in Christchurch in New Zealand in 2019, and several members of the U.S. “Rise Above Movement” who were prosecuted for attacking counter-protesters at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in August 2017, have been trained by the Azov Battalion.
```
Pax Americana & the EU is sending weapons to the Azov Battalion in this war. Here is more on the "Rise Above Movement", which Wikipedia describes as ```a loose collective of violent neo-Nazis and fascists", white nationalist, white supremacist, and far-right``` and ```Social media accounts used by the group shared photographed of members meeting with far-right and neo-Nazi groups in Eastern Europe, such as the Ukrainian political party National Corps and the Azov Battalion```
I also don't support Pax Americana destroying the Nordstream Pipeline, where the German people bear the brunt of this act of violence. I lived in Panama City, FL, where the divers who destroyed the Nordstream Pipe live, as reported by Pulitzer Prize journalist Seymour Hersch.
Sounds like I failed some sort of purity test here. It's a chilling time we live in; that simply saying we should not eagerly enter into wars & arm violent extremists is so controversial. Reminds me of the 1930s Germany, where so-called pacifists (imo people with common sense) were so wholeheartedly denounced when they did not support the tenants of the same extremist ideology that created WW2...whose modern direct adherents we are sending $billions of weapons to.
But shhhh, we can't talk about this. It's the dirty secret that shall not be mentioned. Who in their proper mind would support this? Consolidated power inevitably gets corrupted & turns into a bully because it attracts psychopaths, sociopaths, & sycophants into positions of leadership.
So please, denounce me & downvote me. Flag this post. Silence this thread. Many people critical of wars & arming extremist groups have been denounced & silence in the past and continue to be denounced & silenced. Show us all who you really are...Are the dead Ukrainians, dead Russians, & rise of Nazi ideological extremists worth it?
I wasn’t sure what you meant. It’s hard to tell what someone is indicating in online comments. I don’t think the world should stay out of Ukraine but I agree America doesn’t have to be in the war the way it is. Europe is powerful.
I keep thinking Russia is a joke now. Whatever they get of Ukraine, isn’t the country a mess now? Would they be able to invade Georgia in 5 years? Other regional power like Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia are much more successful at their imperialism. Israel is the most successful of regional powers. Israel is unique in that it is plenty more powerful than any neighboring country while having fewer people. Not to mention engaging in ethnic cleansing and an open air gulag/internment camp in the Gaza Strip.
I guess my thinking is who cares? Relatively speaking. We were still bombing Yemen with Saudis pretty recently. Israel kills so many Palestinians. America keeps trying to overthrow leftist leaders in Brazil, Cuba, and Venezuela. American intelligence assassinated the leader of my parent’s country a decade ago.
I never quite understood the intense hype of Russia and Ukraine. I’m guessing it’s because they are white and the Global North is white and controls the world, relatively speaking.
I realize my comment borders on whataboutism. I don’t think it is. I’ve condemned Russia’s actions.
These neverending wars & the incentives that perpetuate the neverending wars are a tragedy. I've been following the Russian state's reasons for the invasion, which is to combat NATO encroachment & to de-Nazify Ukraine. Putin stated that the US is "agreement incapable" & Xi told Biden something to the effect "you say one thing but do another". India & the global south do not condemn the invasion. Putin's rhetoric about fighting imperialist colonialism is received well not because Putin is a wonderful guy, but because these words ring of truth to the audience.
I'm not happy with the invasion but given the aggressive expansionist behavior of Pax Americana, I don't know if there are any alternatives other than the West using diplomacy in good faith. Russians see this conflict as "existential" & will not back down. Given such a position, does diplomacy not make sense? Why don't we know more about their positions? The captured media only tells one story. "Putin is a madman hell bent on invading Ukraine", when in reality Russia, after Gorbachev decided to end the Soviet Union, has tried diplomacy for years but the agreements were violated.
There was a US backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, which the Nazis played an important role in. The Minsk 2 agreement was broken by Ukraine as it continued to attack the Donesk & Luhansk Republics, both of which declared independence from Ukraine after the 2014 coup.
Zelensky & Putin were about to come to an agreement in February before the west, via Boris Johnson, intervened.
My main point here is diplomacy is possible & the natural course but bad actors in Pax Americana, like the NeoCons/NeoLibs only push war & double down on war when these misadventures fall apart. This behavior also drives the conflicts in Yemen, Israel, South America, etc.
The NeoCons/NeoLibs used to be known as "The War Party". Fitting name. They push for war & as we have seen, war is what we have gotten for a long time. The War Party has caused widespread destruction & sponsored widespread terrorism throughout it's history.
The alternative is peaceful coexistence with Russia, China, South America, Africa, the Middle East, etc. BRICS & a multipolar payment system are developing, which I believe will usher in a new age of global prosperity. The question is, will Pax Americana dissolve just like the USSR dissolved or will it remain by sticking to it's stated policy explained as:
```
we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population...Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security
```
or as the Chinese govt officials call it, The Thucydides Trap.
> Extreme individualism and libertarianism is an extremely seductive ideology. Its simplicity and self-justification is very appealing to many HN posters.
I think the benefits far outweigh the downsides. To be frank, I think a big chunk of its problems is that it is not integrated enough.
Then again, my perspective is from someone not originally from Europe, that chose to migrate here and declined job offers from the US even though I would receive considerably more money had I accepted. I have zero regrets, by the way.
So take my opinion as one without the social nuance from someone born here.
I think many of the benefits could be achieved with better methods, other then putting a French style barley democratic bureaucracy on top of all existing democracies.
The reality is also that almost non of the people in the countries were actually asked if they wanted to join.
There is a difference between being pro European integration and pro existing EU structure.
how where people not asked if they wanted to join?
mind you, European integration is a major political pillar in national politics of basically all countries inside of europe and its periphery.
People vote on parties based on there political program, and most people seem to want to vast economic benefits being a member states brings. (heck, ukraine is basically fighting a war at the moment about an issue which basically boils down to European integration).
People definetly had a say if they wanted EU membership through the political process of there country.
The only case where this is a bit of a grey area is of the founding countries of the precursor of the EU. (european community of coal and steel). Most of those measures got passed as policy without a lot of democratic process by the populance.
But we cannot change the past, and considering the state of most of europe during the 1950's i wouldn't judge them so harshly for it.
I mean those problems are well understood. There are not that many parties to vote for and people vote for the party they dislike least. Some of those parties wanted to join the EU. In general it was elites that wanted to join the EU, not the party base. People might have voted social domestic because they wanted domestic labor laws but instead their country was integrated in essentially a super-national state.
The reality is most people vote primary for domestic polices, and the extent what the EU would do was not understood by voters at the time. There is a difference in initially joining and then having very little choice in the continue growth of that institutions power.
And in fact, in many places where aspects of the EU were put to a popular vote it actually fails.
There is also the reality that things like the EU/Euro were political projects and that Germany after the Cold War had to agree to some of these things in order for France and Britain to accept its unification.
People certainty were not asked if Eastern nations should be allowed to join the EU. Again, shouldn't a popular vote be in order when an institution like the EU considers adding a new member that can massively impact its economy and will receive untold billions in subsidies?
I'm Swiss so for me, a decision of such huge importance should actually be based on a popular vote. Not 'well in the 70s leftist parties were broadly more popular'. And once you are in, its incredibly hard to get out, and that is by design.
A real European Union based on fundamentally pro European pro Democracy principles would have been established over many steps and many votes. This would give some granularity to the choices. Maybe the population like one aspect of the many EU polices, but not the other.
In Switzerland we rejected the EG, but we joined Schengen, both based on popular vote. We join institutions such as ESA and many others. That seems to me to be a much better process of incrementally growing together.
> the state of most of europe during the 1950's i wouldn't judge them so harshly for it.
I think most Americans have literally no opinions about the EU. I’ve always assumed anybody talking about it lives there. It’s virtually absent from our lives here.
I’m American and my opinion is EU good. Also euro expanding east bad; single currency for radically different economies doesn’t work out well in theory and practice, ends up saddling everyone with a lot of debt since inflation in just Greece isn’t an option for France.
As a British person, I'd suggest you reconsider. Things over here are not so rosy. Drugs shortages, crazy inflation, no discernible benefits at all except to a government that hates judicial oversight of any kind.
The UK has been doing a bad job at a lot of things and they ended up blamed the EU. Now all the problems are blamed by the opposition on leaving the EU.
The reality is that most of the UKs problems were not because of the EU before and are not because they left the UK now.
Can you share more about this 'drug shortage'? Is it like the empty shop shelves and empty fuel pumps that is claimed to still exist for years now despite being resolved within days/weeks at the time?
The fact is not everything was the EU's fault. There was a lot Westminster could have done to make things better. They choose not to and indeed actually gold plated many EU directives due to virtue signaling which made them much more difficult to follow.
The fact is politicians at all levels including EU take credit for things they didn't do and try to ignore the fallout from things they did.
All the while blaming the voters.
Mainly because changing public perception of policy choices takes time and effort and they have limited of both and tend to want to focus on things they actually care about.
Euro Area inflation is significantly lower than UK, same as Germany, France, Spain, ...
In the EU as a whole it's slightly higher because of the East countries (Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, ...) where inflation is crazy high because of their dependency on Russia for energy.
UK is in the very West of Europe, not East, and not reliant on Russia as East countries are. The economic impact of Brexit has just been significant, as it was supposed to be. Everybody knew it would be. Brexit was never about economy, but mainly sovereignty. That's a legitimate trade-off, of course, and many in the UK prefer to be a bit poorer in exchange for less dependency on their neighbours. I respect that. But it's important not to fool oneself thinking that leaving the highest economy in the world (EU economy was bigger than US' before UK left) was going to be good for the UK economy. That's just nonsense.
I see Sweden the "utopia" that some claim has even higher inflation than UK, I guess that must be because of Brexit too right? And Italy, the land of the great food?
The UK would do much better had they not chosen Brexit. Basically everyone here admits that (bank of England etc) apart from some zealot politicians. And the health system has collapsed. The problems are not solely caused by Brexit but it exacerbates nearly all of them.
Exactly. Brexit long term net effect could be a few points off their GDP. That's not the end of the world, but it's certainly significant and it will make British people a poorer, which of course has an impact on public services. Whether this is worth it's up to British people to assess.
My personal suspiction is that UK citizens were mislead about the consequences of leaving but, hey, democracy is about taking decisions with incomplete information. People have spoken and their decision is sacred. I wish the UK the best luck and it's with sadness that I believe they will need a lot of it.
If your definition of Democracy requires no deception or falsehood in politics then there likely has never been a Democracy in human history. The voters never work with perfect knowledge, and the politicians always lie.
Not all too different from Europeans smugly commenting about how crazy Americans are for having different priorities in threads that happen to relate to American issues.
As a third party (New Zealander), I don't think that's correct. I think the US criticism of EU is much more often baseless compared to the reverse situation (as evidenced by the number of issues which are picked up by the residents of non aligned countries).
Also as a New Zealander - I think the opposite - EU criticism of the US really misses many points about the competitiveness of their society and burden they bear protecting the rest of the world's democracies. I think it is really about people's personal politics - Kiwis generally are much more aligned (left) with EU socialism/interventionism and hence relate more and see US criticism as baseless. It's all a matter of perspective & personal politics vs one side being more baseless than the other.
"burden they bear protecting the rest of the world's democracies"
As an Australian, that's a pretty glowing interpretation of the US intervening where they aren't wanted or needed
Was the US protecting 'democracy' when they annexed Hawaii, or how they've treated Cuba? Or Vietnam or South America or Iraq or any litany of other countries
Hell. They helped depose Gough Whitlam because he dared threaten to nationalize our mines ala Norway, not to mention that worthless spying ring that is Pine Gap
You’re completely disregarding that they’re talking about the US being the armed forces of all western democracies and strawmanning about 19th-early 20th century imperialism (which Western Europe took part in far more than the US did.)
The US helped bomb Yemen this decade. Drone strikes still happen in multiple countries if I’m not mistaken. America funds Israel now. That’s all happening now.
The subject is about how the US sucks and should be critiqued. You're talking about defending what the US does around the world. I'm giving examples of how the US really is around the world, at least the Global South. What discussion do you think is happening?
This is a further straw man when the point is that American economics and politics is what allows for the military that protects western democracies around the globe. Address the point don’t change the subject.
As a USian, I think it is super important to question a super power that takes it upon themselves to protect the rest of the world's democracies--even if they have to force them into democracy first.
The same way I think it is super important to challenge Russia's current defense against Ukrainian aggression.
America is an awful country and they have lead 50+ coups. Murdered many millions. Installed tons of fascists, right wingers, and dictators. How is that protecting the rest of the world’s democracies?
If you’re in NZ you don’t have to fall for American capitalist agitation propaganda. It’s obvious the US only cares about advancing capitalism and its own imperialist whims.
In my experience, criticism of the US is of the "this is clearly harming more people than it helps" variety, while criticism of the EU is of the "look at what these silly people are trying to provide as a service to their citizens" variety.
Nah criticism from Europeans generally comes down, “look at dumb Americans doing things differently than us, don’t they know we’re objectively right about political and economic institutions?”
The same can be said of your posts. I pushed back against someone, so buzz off. You aren’t the arbiter of usefulness just as Europeans aren’t the arbiter of what other countries should be doing economically or politically.
A crowd that is ideological resistant to reality in quite a entertaining fashion. Just remember the Boing 737 Max, which was never explored under this focus. Why does European airbus thrive, while us aircraft industry declined? Both are heavily state subsidized, so it is not that. There is something dysfunctional in us business culture, that extracts value first, and then runs without creating something for the value extracted.
It sometimes is almost reminiscent of the eastern European oligarchs that emerged at the end of the coldwar.
> Why does European airbus thrive, while us aircraft industry declined?
The documentary "Downfall: The Case Against Boeing"[1] goes into this topic, and I believe the wiki page[2] summary captures it nicely:
> "There were many decades when Boeing did extraordinary things by focusing on excellence and safety and ingenuity. Those three virtues were seen as the key to profit. It could work, and beautifully. And then they were taken over by a group that decided Wall Street was the end-all, be-all. [...]"
Of course, I have no idea if this is just cherry-picking information, but it does seem plausible why things "suddenly" changed.
I've heard one theory that the merger with McDonnell Douglas swept the bean-counters from there into executive positions ruining the engineering focus at Boeing.
The Microsoft spreadsheet happy-hippos are relying on India to buy enormous sums of Boeing passenger planes is one headline the media is running with, and another line of propaganda is to not bet against India. They say.
>> There is something dysfunctional in us business culture, that extracts value first,
You just said it. When we prioritize the money over the activity that makes the money... We deprioritize the activity - it's at least second place if not worse.
If there was a machine that increased a company's stock value by crushing orphans invented today, tomorrow there would be lobbyists in Congress pushing to allow corporations to directly apply for adoptions.
>A crowd that is ideological resistant to reality in quite a entertaining fashion. Just remember the Boing 737 Max, which was never explored under this focus.
Boeing was heavily criticized by HN in every thread I saw about it. You picked a wrong example.
I can’t comment on the broader US/EU perception question, but I would partly attribute Airbus’ success to its harnessing of smaller scale engineering excellence always present in Western European aviation. Airbus merely solved the problem of risk of high scale production which has historically been a challenge for European manufacturers relative to Americans operating in their large, uniform market.
I think pointing out Airbus is a bit questionable. Yes Airbus does well now, but Europe tried to do these kinds of things in many different places and most of them didn't end up so well.
And at the same time, if we stay within Aerospace, why is SpaceX utterly dominating anything from Europe. Is US business culture to blame?
