Does the EU need reform? How would you reform it?

[Tribble]

This thread is intended to be exactly says on the tin:

Does the EU need to be reformed? If so, what kind of reforms do you think is needed, and how far would they have to go? If not, why do you feel that the EU is best as is?

The reforms could be on anything - political, economic, military, judicial, voting, members, degree of integration etc.

Or perhaps, do you think that the EU should be abolished? If so, why? What kind of alternatives would you suggest, and why do you feel they would work better?

Note that this thread is not intended to be a circle-jerk over why X country is stupid/fascists/lazy/shitheads etc. There are plenty of other threads for that. I'd actually like to know what if anything you think could be done to make the EU better.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, as an advocate of greater international unity with the ultimate goal of a single global government, I would like to see it become more united, more centralized, ultimately evolving into a single federal Republic.

But I know that's probably not realistic, at least for the time being.

[K. A. Pital]

The EU should remove common currency, and let nations have greater autonomy in their decisions, as long as they don't just pack and go outside the common legal framework.

However, as a capitalistic, oligarchic, colonial Empire-like construct, the EU is very unlikely to be substantially reformed. Therefore, it is only natural for it to be destroyed at some point in the future.

[Starglider]

Apportion european parliament seats according to the net finanical contribution of each country to the EU (countries with negative net contribution get one token seat). That will allow German's key leadership role to be properly reflected and recognised.

[Tribble]

The EU should remove common currency, and let nations have greater autonomy in their decisions, as long as they don't just pack and go outside the common legal framework.

Why do you believe that the common currency should be removed? What about countries where their citizens want to have a common currency?
What kind of decisions do you feel should be autonomous compared to now?

However, as a capitalistic, oligarchic, colonial Empire-like construct, the EU is very unlikely to be substantially reformed. Therefore, it is only natural for it to be destroyed at some point in the future.

Why do you feel that the EU is incapable of being substantially reformed?

Apportion european parliament seats according to the net finanical contribution of each country to the EU (countries with negative net contribution get one token seat).

So the more of your net income you pay into the EU, the more seats you get? What would the threshholds be? What are the timelines involved - say a country suffers from a recession, are the seats immediately removed? Perhaps most importantly, why do you think that such a measure would work, and that people would be willing to follow it?

That will allow German's key leadership role to be properly reflected and recognised.

My understating was that the EU was largely designed to prevent Germany from being the sole dominant force. IIRC both sides wanted it that way - other countries did not want to be dominated by Germany, while the Germans did not want to be the leaders. Although events transpired that Germany ended up being the leader of the EU anyways, why do you feel the EU should be reformed to reflect that? Do you feel that's going to make other EU countries more likely to support it, or would they view it as German hegemony (even if they Germans are not intending it to be that way)?

[Tribble]

Just so that there are no misconceptions, my responses were intended to be more "I'm curious and I want to know more" and not "you're stupid and I don't agree with you". I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the whole thing atm, and it would be great to get some different perspectives.

[K. A. Pital]

Why do you believe that the common currency should be removed? What about countries where their citizens want to have a common currency?

Then they can very well have it, and have its exchange rate skyrocket when it is no longer dragged down by the likes of Greece and Italy; and find themselves in Switzerland's shoes. But in general, everyone should be free to opt out.

What kind of decisions do you feel should be autonomous compared to now?

Currency emission, for example. But also labour laws. Nations should be free to introduce more strict norms than the EU itself and should not be bound by pathetic treaties with America that seek to undermine everything European social democracy has accomplished over 70 plus years.

Why do you feel that the EU is incapable of being substantially reformed?

Its bureaucracy is firmly in the oligarch pocket (as witnessed by the secret and closed TTIP negotiations by the EC), and it is extremely unlikely to reform the union substantially. Replacing it with another set of bureaucrats, given the way EU functions, is impossible - various unelectable and unelected bodies play too big a role in the structure.

[Thanas]

The EU needs reform. The Eu needs to become a state, but it will not due to too many nationalists.

[K. A. Pital]

The EU needs reform. The Eu needs to become a state, but it will not due to too many nationalists.

Won't happen also because nation-states have already formed inside it during the period of nation-state formation in the XIX and XX centuries. Too late. And no common identity.

[RogueIce]

The EU needs reform. The Eu needs to become a state, but it will not due to too many nationalists.

Won't happen also because nation-states have already formed inside it during the period of nation-state formation in the XIX and XX centuries. Too late. And no common identity.

Yeah...

Look, the US has a bunch of problems with "State's Rights" as it is. And while I'm sure some people will jump in and go all "herp derp dumb Americans" to that, I'm not sure how they expect actual nations - with decades if not centuries of history as such - to be any better when they try to fuse the EU into the 'United States of Europe' or whatever.

I've also never really seen a compelling argument for why Europe needs to become a singular nation, outside of some variation on "one step to World Government" and/or "fuck da USA".

[Tribble]

The EU needs reform. The Eu needs to become a state, but it will not due to too many nationalists.

Won't happen also because nation-states have already formed inside it during the period of nation-state formation in the XIX and XX centuries. Too late. And no common identity.

Yeah...

Look, the US has a bunch of problems with "State's Rights" as it is. And while I'm sure some people will jump in and go all "herp derp dumb Americans" to that, I'm not sure how they expect actual nations - with decades if not centuries of history as such - to be any better when they try to fuse the EU into the 'United States of Europe' or whatever.

I've also never really seen a compelling argument for why Europe needs to become a singular nation, outside of some variation on "one step to World Government" and/or "fuck da USA".

If the EU needs to seriously reform and become a "United States of Europe" (for want of a better term), but for various reasons it won't do so for the foreseeable future, then what are the best alternatives? Is the EU stable in its present state, or will its failure to become a state ultimately doom it to failure? What reforms could be done to improve it? Would "More Europe" or "Less Europe" work better, or should it remain as-is?

[aerius]

Step 1 is to figure out and define a goal for the EU. Why do we want an EU, what is it supposed to do, what is it working towards, etc. Because at this point I'm pretty sure if I asked 10 people what the EU is for I'd get at least 50 different answers, including "good question" and "I have no fucking clue to be honest". Until you can sort that out you can't even begin to figure out what, if anything needs to be done in terms of reforms.

[mr friendly guy]

I've also never really seen a compelling argument for why Europe needs to become a singular nation, outside of some variation on "one step to World Government" and/or "fuck da USA".

I would imagine some variation of mutual benefit and stronger together if they want to be a big player on the world stage. Note - not everyone wants this.

Europe industrialised early so a small country with a high GDP / capita could exert global influence and have a larger economy than a low income nation with higher population. Prior to industrialisation, civilisations with big populations like China and Rome would dominate the tables for historical GDP (yes, people do look at historical GDP). So for a while smaller European nations could have a larger economy than civilisations in Asia and Africa who had larger populations. This however becomes less likely as former low income nations with a much larger population move into middle and high income as they also industrialise. To give an example, according to IMF figures, in 1999, Italy, Germany, France and the UK individually had a larger economy than China. Fast forward to 2015 the PRC now has an economy larger than all 4 European nations combined.

It isn't just China developing, its all across the so called developing world (China is just a very pertinent example). Niall Ferguson has a nice description for this, first it was the rise of the west, and now its the rise of the rest. Now lets fast forward further to decades down the line. Individually you might find big or middle European economic powers with comparable GDP to countries now which we would not associate with being an economic power. For Europe to retain global influence, the best bet would be to work together. This BTW, isn't just something I said, in the movie The Great European disaster movie, someone interviewed actually used a variation of this argument.



* the terms low, middle and high income are per world bank definitions