> I doubt the EU will survive in its current state.
A lot of people desire this to be true, but that does not mean that it is. It is a particularly weird opinion to hold in the wake of the most recent challenge to its continuity -- the Brexit fiasco, with the EU having maintained a united front for more than 4 years, while the UK emerges out of it in a terrible state -- and the worst is yet to come.
The EU is not perfect by any means (what is?), but it is a terribly ambitious project that has been painstakingly built over decades. Every step of the way, someone like you was claiming that it was impossible, that it was surely about to collapse. Well, we are 27 member states strong and we are dealing with the economic challenged posed by COVID better than most of the rest of the world.
If we look at objective measures, such as economic inequality, political polarization or civil unrest, we are perhaps forced to conclude that the US are closer to collapse than the EU. To be clear, I do not desire the collapse of the US. I think that that US and the EU are natural friends, in a world where they have much more in common than what separates them.
> It is a particularly weird opinion to hold in the wake of the most recent challenge to its continuity -- the Brexit fiasco, with the EU having maintained a united front for more than 4 years, while the UK emerges out of it in a terrible state -- and the worst is yet to come.
If would be a weird opinion to hold if the EU managed to keep britain. But the fact that the EU lost a major nation doesn't make it a weird opinion. It makes it a sensible one to hold. Did you think the soviet union losing warsaw pact members was also a sign of stability?
> If we look at objective measures, such as economic inequality, political polarization or civil unrest, we are perhaps forced to conclude that the US are closer to collapse than the EU.
No. If we lost texas or california or ny, then you might have a point. Also, none of what you listed actually lead to collapse. The US has been going strong for nearly 250 years. We survived the civil war without losing any territory or collapsing. Do you think the EU could survive the same? We have the same language, history, culture, currency, etc at this point. There is no legitimate secessionist movement here. There are a few in europe. Also, the EU has fault lines that separate people by language, history, culture, currency, etc.
If economic inequality, political polarization or civil unrest lead to a collapse, then we would have collapsed a long time ago. The US survived the gilded age, civil war, the 60s, etc. The EU faced a stiff breeze and lost britain. Imagine what real issues would do to the EU?
The problem with the EU is the lack of a strong central government and a sense of identity because european or eusian ( heck EU members don't really have a name do they? ) is really a meaningless designation like asian. It's too big and broad of a term to be sensible political identity. Like the soviet union. Or dare I say even the russian federation or china.
The funny part is that you don't have a name that only applies to people from your country. As the other comment said, there many millions of Americans that are not from the US.
In the same vein, people from the EU call themselves Europeans even though there are many millions of Europeans that don't live in EU countries.
To answer your question: I identify myself as European, Spaniard and Catalan. Just like I'm pretty sure there will be some people in the US that consider themselves Americans and Texans or Californians or New Yorkers or whatever...
Technically, Mexicans and Canadians (and others) also live on the continent of North America. Lots of other not-USA-people live on the continent of South America.
I don't understand how you can look at the world and honestly think the US is closer to collapse then the EU. Also what world do you live in where the EU is doing better then most of the world? Half the EU countries are in the top 20 deaths / pop.
In any case, the post you're replying to claimed that "we are dealing with the economic challenge[s] posed by COVID better than most of the rest of the world."
I'm not sure why the death numbers, even if they were not confounded like this, would be a meaningful measure for that.
I wanted to write "in its current form". I don't think it will dissolve, but people will realize that some countries have different ideas about government. Especially with the planned addition of new countries. Many countries favor democracy a lot less and we are blindly expanding.
Many people believe we need the union to defend our values, but it becomes more apparent that we might loose them on the way.
Big corporations like Amazon are part of the dominating class. Me (and probably you, since you need to ask the question -- no offense intended) are part of the dominated class. Two different sets of rules apply here, it's not a matter of the products themselves being different.
Or more traditionally known as owning class and working class. Most folks here are probably in that quasi-state of working class but make plenty of money so it's a moot point.
I always prefered the 4-class system, which specified a class of people who cared more about the perfection of their art, than monetary concerns. Tradesmen, engineers, and academics would fall into this category.
Just lumping everyone into the middle-class based on income alone, always seemed to be an American conceit.
Class is supposed to be able pedigree; thus a king in exile is still part of the aristocratic elite because he was raised as such even if he doesn't have a dollar to his name.
You are looking for meaning. That is a normal human instinct.
I am talking about power structures. They should be examined. Most people here are not willing to do that, because they figure they will soon be the top dogs. They are wrong, and this expectation is being exploiting by less naive actors.
I agree though I think the 4 class system enables people to fight for their place within the social strata. Today, many are against unions out of an odd idea, that the economy is all that matters, and that with an unconstrained market they too will get their lottery ticket to being the next Jeff Bezos.
If one thinks the highest calling is to be a proficient tradesman then we absolutely want a union to push back against business interest stopping us from gaining more mastery. That's a direct attack against the existing power structure.
Regarding being pedantic: well, I'm not sure what to say. I think confusing "could of" with "could have" is a fundamental, terrible mistake. I guess one person's permissiveness is another's idiocracy?
Pointing out that it is becoming a common mistake to confuse the verb "to have" with the preposition "of" -> pedantic!
Failing to capitalize "Nazi" according to what the Oxford dictionary thinks is best for a contraction of two German words -> HAHAHAH! You were being a grammar nazi, but ironically you failed to capitalize Nazi correctly.
I've been noticing this "meme" recently on HN: that since company X (any one of the FAANGs) is American, it is not subject to European law. If it operated in Europe, it absolutely is. Believe it or not, the EU is also a sovereign territory with its own laws.
Can you imagine arguing that American law does not apply to some company operating in the US, because said company was founded in some other country?
> Can you imagine arguing that American law does not apply to some company operating in the US, because said company was founded in some other country?
I can imagine countries ceasing to operate in the US, yes. Can you?
I realize you can read irony into what I wrote. ;)
But it's actually true. In any social situation, we have layers of emotional defenses that we build up, and they're especially brought out in a portrait session. Am I attractive enough? Is my smile genuine enough? Am I confident enough? Am I trying too hard? Not enough? Am I wasting my money? Is this worth it? Should I just leave now and cut my losses? This makes us tense and pretty much as far away from our authentic emotional self as we can be -- and it shows on our face, clear as day.
The job of the headshot photographer is to undo all those layers so they can capture your expression when you feel totally at ease, believing in yourself, without all those worries and tensions layered on top. They're almost amateur psychologists or acting coaches in this way.
So I get why it seems ironic, but being emotionally authentic in an extremely artificial situation isn't a natural thing. It takes a lot of work. But it's still authentic -- it's not creating something fake, but rather working to bring out what's most real about you.
(At least, this is what the good headshot photographers do, which is why they make $$$. Bad/cheap photographers will just tell you to smile, get a forced uneasy expression from you, take a bunch of shots, ask you to choose one, and call it a day.)
It's the same way speaking on stage. There is absolutely nothing natural about getting up on a stage with hundreds or thousands of your "closest friends" looking on. And, yes, good speakers are acting at some level. But many/most of them are acting to get back some of the authentic interaction that would be there if there were talking to you individually over a beer.
I've seen plenty of awe-inspiring photography across many genres, but I have literally never seen a corporate headshot or a dating photo that does anything like this.
The closest not-really-corporate shots are probably the official NASA pre-launch astronaut portraits, which do indeed do a great job of humanising the astronauts.
But as soon as you see someone in a suit, you can pretty much guarantee they're going to be smiling a little too hard while trying and failing to hide that they're stiff, stressed, and guarded. Or possibly slightly dazed. Or overcompensating by trying to look in-control and dominant.
Grey, white or black studio background, corner window shot, corridor shot, water cooler shot, in-focus background, out-of-focus background - none of it seems to help.
Normalizing obesity because you can take some drugs to stay alive (artificially lowering your cholesterol, blood pressure, etc) might not be the smartest idea ever. But yeah, maybe it's the naturalist fallacy. To each their own.
Would those obese people be better off with bad cholesterol, blood pressure, etc.? It seems like you're trying to avoid outright saying we should just let fat people die as an example to everyone else.
What? How on earth would you conclude this from that I wrote?
I was replying to the idea that it is the "naturalist fallacy" to say that it is better to be develop good habits (in this case, eat better), than to just take some drugs and maintain the bad habits. Obese people should take the drugs, I don't wish for anyone to die. Even better for them would be to lose the weight.
The US has a huge (pun intended) obesity problem, and it seems related to worse health outcomes across several dimensions. This is just a fact.
> Nah, they'll want the budget contributions back.
Also: "The German car industry will demand it", "The EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU", etc. All of this has been falsified in the last four years. The integrity of the single market and of the European project is turning out to be much more valuable to EU member states than the highly rebated UK contributions.
As I said, I'm on the side against brexit, but what you're saying is not true. The EU is struggling massively with this current budget round and the loss of the UK contribution seems to legitimately be causing problems.
The shit about BMW's and Prosecco was just nationalist bollocks, but that doesn't mean that the loss of the UK budget contribution isn't real. Likely end outcome is EU budget struggles a bit for a few years, then UK rejoins as an associate or whatever new category they come up with.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound aggressive against you, even if you were of a different opinion. I am a bit tired of all the disinformation on this topic, I highly value the European project -- it is not perfect but my life would be so much poorer without it -- so I can get a bit emotional.
I have also been an anglophile since I can remember, so I am quite disappointed with the UK. I think I'm not alone in this.
Regarding the budget round: my impression is that the struggle comes from the situation caused by covid more than anything else. Brexit became a niche interest in the EU, most people are not paying attention or really care about it anymore.
Notice that the contribution of the UK after rebates amounted to 9 billion euros, in comparison to a yearly EU budget of about 165 billion euros, which is in itself 1% of the EU's GDP. While I am sure that the EU misses that contribution, I find it hard to believe that it is a huge problem.
Loss of UK means 10 euro a year less per every person left in eu27. You wildly overstating UKs contribution. It's peanuts compared to what Covid has caused
The European Council is made of the democratically elected Heads of State of each Member State. The European Council nominates the president of the European Comission, which again has one member per Member State. The European Parliament, which is composed of MEPs directly elected by the citizens of each member state, must ratify all nominations. The directly elected European Parliament has veto power on European Comission decisions, and so has every Member State.
A state can only join the EU by virtue of a democratic decision according to the constitution of the Member State itself, and there are strong requirements on prospective Member States to be themselves proper democracies with separation of powers in order to be allowed to join.
Granted, these requirements have been slightly overlooked when it came to the UK: the House of Lords is undemocratic, one could say outdated, and would almost certainly not be tolerated in any other candidate state.
So, the EU might be complex, but in what sense exactly is it undemocratic?
> how does the normal citizen vote for the president of the European Commission? How do we vote them out if we dont like their governance anymore?
As is the case with the chief executive in most parliamentary systems, by voting for an MP (in the case, MEP) of the party which backs their preferred (or opposes their opposed) candidate for leader.
ok so we have an MEP in parliament. But MEPs, can't initiate legislation, only approve it. The EU parliament is arguably the only parliament in the world where members of parliament are not allowed to make laws or initiate legislation. The institution that actually makes the laws in the EU is not the democratically elected members of parliament, but the unelected European Commissioners. This is the issue with the EU. Its a special club at the top, and the people who we can vote for don't really have any say in any of it. That alone is the best reason for it to go!
You've just shifted the goalpost here. You asked how to control who's the head of the Comission not how to initiate legislation.
But since you asked look at how little power a British MP has to get a private member's bill through to a vote. In actual fact the only private member's bills that get a vote let alone pass are those with government support.
Wait, the U.K. isn’t a democracy, the queen is no longer the head of state, and the House of Lords no longer has a role in legislature or government? That’s news to me.
Also the House of Common's isn't really democratic in any meaningful sense of the word. It took 886,400 votes to get 1 Green MP but only 25,900 votes per SNP MP. Similarly 38,300 per Conservative MP to 336,000 per LibDem MP. That's an order of magnitude difference between votes to power.
> The baggage caused by the UK will dissipate in 5-10 years or so
This is quite optimistic. I'm not sure if you live in the EU, but the UK severely tainted its image and destroyed all good-will with most powerful EU member states. In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia.
More objectively: if you study the history of the EU, you will see that this "baggage" is quite old. For quite some time in the 70s vetoed UK's accession (to the then EEC), precisely because it feared that the UK was only interested in economic benefits and would sabotage any other aspect of the European project. That is more or less what happened when the UK eventually joined, and the EU had to build around the UK (Schengen, Euro, etc.). It is true that the EU likes rich countries, but it is also true that things are far from being as simple as you describe.
Interesting detail: you mention Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. They are members of EFTA. EFTA was created by the UK during the time that they were not able to join the EEC. After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused. So being rich is not enough once you become sufficiently toxic.
Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things, and it was given extraordinary rebates for its contributions to the EU budget. Should the UK wish to rejoin, it would have to accept Schengen, the Euro, no more rebates and the "ever closer union" political commitment spelled out in the treaties. I find it very hard to believe that the UK would accept such things in our lifetimes, and I find it very hard to believe that the EU would be willing to put up with the current circus that is UK politics and media in the forseable future.
The UK government is now talking about not honoring the Withdrawal Agreement if there is no Free Trade Deal. Well, this means a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This means the return of violence to that region. Even if the UK honors the WA, it is quite likely that the situation will degrade to a point that this border comes back. That was the crux of the negotiations for the last 4 years between the EU and the UK, that everyone is now forgetting about. There are also other issues, like Gibraltar. I am afraid that heavier baggage will necessarily accumulate before it can even start to dissipate.
> In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia.
pull the other one, if the UK relented they'd jump at the opportunity
realpolitik always wins
> After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused.
this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either
the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires
> Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things,
it was never "given" special treatment, the UK accepted the full acquis communautaire at the point it joined
when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed
> the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires
Perhaps, but nevertheless they were preemptively rejected, as you can read in the above article.
> when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed
They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK. That kind of special privilege is gone. By the way, the initial treaty that the UK signed already spelled out the goal of an "ever closer union", but then the UK politicians and media make Pikachu face when they rediscover this goal, and claim that they were deceived and that "it was just a trade agreement, never a political project".
And the rebates also existed, and had nothing to do with vetoes or treaties. It was outright special treatment. And still the UK kept complaining about its "contributions".
> Senior Norwegian politicians and business figures have rejected Norway-plus
so not the Norwegian government
> The rejection is a blow to an influential cross-party group led by the Tory MP Nick Boles
so not the UK government
> They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK.
the euro did not exist at the point the UK joined and accepted the acquis
if you go and actually read the TFEU you'll see the legal mechanism that states clearly that the UK negotiated that it would not have to join, in return for not vetoing the treaty
> This is quite optimistic. I'm not sure if you live in the EU, but the UK severely tainted its image and destroyed all good-will with most powerful EU member states. In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia.
I'm European and I've been following the news quite closely. Keep in mind that if you're the kind of person active on HN, you're probably in a media bubble.
Regular people, except for the French (maybe, even that is debatable), still like the UK.
> Well, this means a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Hi, I live in that region. I thought I might be able to give a little more insight in the situation here.
> This means the return of violence to that region.
It's kind of funny you guys assumed it stopped... It's reduced, but it's not stopped. When the Good Friday agreement came in, it gave Northern Ireland the option to leave the UK when it wants. It turns out that the general public that live here do not want to leave the UK, which diminished the influence unionists and separatists had over people... Turns out having a democratic option made it hard to convince people to join a fight on either side.
Further, most people are more practical, self interested than ideological currently. For many, the Republic looks like a worse future for NI, with less money to go around than if it stays in the UK. The Republic government of course also views NI to be a horrible drain on their resources, so have repeatedly stated over the years that "now is not the right time".
While this has been happening, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have lost significant populations of natives. The Republic has had a massive increase in immigration, so much to the point that the nationalism and that sort of ideology has declined, reducing that want for conflicts even further.
None of the politicians in Northern Ireland have a desire and cannot be compelled to create a physical border between the Republic of Ireland. This of course does not sit well with the EU. The UK parliament does not actually give much of a shit about Northern Ireland outside of how much we spend and leaves NI to its' own autonomy out of fear of violence in the mainland UK.
At this point, I am convinced that if a border is going to be imposed, it will be from the Republic's side. The Republic government doing this of course would put the Republic and EU into a very negative light. So of course, the Republic is very unhappy about this and has voiced this in confidence a few times.
Taking the temperature here, there is a lot of uncertainty, but, I think regardless of what happens, Northern Ireland is probably likely going to benefit more through this. It will be the only UKish territory (ignoring Gibraltar) that shares a border with an EU country that retains easy access to Great Britain, which will make it either a special trading partner, or a special back door. Whether the UK and EU like it or not. I do not think the violence in Northern Ireland will be increasing much more than it is now; they do not seem to have the people or the resources.
The UK parliament of course has made some new acts so that the people of Northern Ireland can control our own fate in face of brexit after a deal is made, democraticing what is happening here.
The UK and EU in my opinion are both trying to use Northern Ireland to get a better trade agreement.
Eh being from Ireland if anyone puts up a border it be Irish farmers. Last thing they want is northern Ireland being used as a backdoor into Europe with UK dumping questionable gm or chlorinated food destroying their livelihoods.
> but the UK severely tainted its image and destroyed all good-will with most powerful EU member states
The Germans consider the Brits a v useful hedge against French socialism, the French against German hegemony, North Europe against French and German expensive grand designs, South Europe against French and German snootiness, Eastern Europe against French and German Russophilia and so on and so forth. The UK has 800 years of helping keep the balance of power in Europe, and being largely a reasonable neighbour (and certainly compared to the French or Germans).
Isn't this a bit too much historical/wishful thinking perspective? I don't think people in Europe see UK as some kind of helper agent in maintaining balance of power/order in continental and northern Europe. UK is simply not relevant now. Those threats from close neighbors are largely gone. The questions that concern people today are different - too much power of EU bodies and bureaucrats, which UK can't help with, some external threats (migrants, terrorists) which UK can't help with, economic recession in whole West which UK can't help with, China influence which UK can't help with. For the eastern countries, Russia is a concern which UK can't help with. Also, nobody in their right mind would rely on UK in this respect (remember Chamberlain and Munich 1938). If any invasion happens in Europe, the relevant factors will be local forces and Americans, UK may choose to help but probably not a substantial factor.
> As it is right now it's dead in the water for any commercial usage
So what? If companies need a certain software, they can pay for it. I remember a time when FOSS was not about providing companies with free work, quite the opposite indeed.
It is presented as being enterprise-ish, for organisations (of which a lot are commercial) and presents features usually useful for large companies. That's what.
This isn't about good/bad or something like that, just an odd presentation that doesn't seem to be in line with the license. There is nobody to pay here to use this stuff because you still won't be able to integrate it without also sharing internal IP.
There are plenty of organisations that would happily pay what they'd normally pay Atlassian to use Wiki.js but they can't because they don't want to share any of their own code. This is also why license guides like the one from google explicitly bans all AGPL software because it's not worth the risk.
It's a bit weird to comment on this as if it's an oversight or unintended downside. Suppose you keep going into someone's house and they don't want you to, so they do something to dissuade you (like putting locks on their doors). You then complain that you can't get in. Their likely response? "Well, yeah..."
These company make changes to Atlassian code? You're conflating internal or public use with derivative work or service offering. You clearly misunderstand licensing.
A lot of people desire this to be true, but that does not mean that it is. It is a particularly weird opinion to hold in the wake of the most recent challenge to its continuity -- the Brexit fiasco, with the EU having maintained a united front for more than 4 years, while the UK emerges out of it in a terrible state -- and the worst is yet to come.
The EU is not perfect by any means (what is?), but it is a terribly ambitious project that has been painstakingly built over decades. Every step of the way, someone like you was claiming that it was impossible, that it was surely about to collapse. Well, we are 27 member states strong and we are dealing with the economic challenged posed by COVID better than most of the rest of the world.
If we look at objective measures, such as economic inequality, political polarization or civil unrest, we are perhaps forced to conclude that the US are closer to collapse than the EU. To be clear, I do not desire the collapse of the US. I think that that US and the EU are natural friends, in a world where they have much more in common than what separates them.