The E.U. plan would allow the bloc to raise money centrally and then redistribute it — something it has never done before. Brussels would offer $550 billion in the form of grants to member countries hit hardest by the economic fallout from the virus. The remainder of the aid would be in the form of loans with strings attached, which more closely mirrors measures of the past.
[...]
In an effort to calm fears from countries skeptical of tighter integration,
[European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen] emphasized that this would be a one-time crisis measure.
I am guessing that the criticism against it is that its not that simple to have a "one time" set in play for a large organization like the EU, the fact that it skips over individual countries who...
I am guessing that the criticism against it is that its not that simple to have a "one time" set in play for a large organization like the EU, the fact that it skips over individual countries who do not want to pay the fee for it - or even can. Since its not a loan, but a donation, the money is basically a higher fee towards the EU and one that many smaller states struggle to raise.
The EU is a mix of different interests and a mix of places who entered based on completely different premises - so there is not a "one size fits all" solution that exists and anything that raises the bar of what the EU is and isn't is complex for member states. The Corona crisis is a good example of how different the reactions are to the pandemic - different places made different choices and now many of those who took those choices see this as a punishment for it.
For smaller countries the EU is massive machinery existing far above their heads and anything they decide can be applied directly. So for them the EU needs to remain a fairly loose union focusing solely on trade and passport agreement otherwise it can become a risk as power is shifted to other larger countries.
What the UK leaving the EU showed, as a hidden benefit, is that its insanely tricky to leave once you're in. That means that whatever the EU decides carries way more relevance as smaller states can't back out.
EDIT: I also share Spel's worry about this. Same as with any state I don't want it to have undue and un-reined power. So any choice that increases its power over its citizens needs to be carefully applied as that power will be used or abused in the future.
EDIT 2: I forgot to add a bias disclosure which is not "in good faith" with such a long and frankly speculative text as this - I am and have always been a EU sceptic since we joined, and a Federalist if we are ment to be in the EU. So please weigh what I have said against that fact.
That is one way of seeing it. I disagree though, not about the English motivations but the narrative spun up around it. The only way we can test it is if another country choose to leave and how...
That is one way of seeing it. I disagree though, not about the English motivations but the narrative spun up around it.
The only way we can test it is if another country choose to leave and how that works - but my guess is that they too will face the exact same problems. Much like joining there will be a lot of empty promises if it relies on a public vote. The difference is that now a large chunk of your economy is bound together with this other entity and the work to divorce yourself from those is monumental, costly and close to impossible to do gracefully.
Like a marriage, it is much harder divorcing than it is to say the initial "I do". One is filled with promise of a future yet realized, the other is filled with practical complexities and several different parties involved socially.
The UK didn't, as far as I see it, mess up so much as - tried wildly to do one thing way more complex than they assumed and then it all collapsed. Then they had to somehow make the promises made in random TV interviews with random politicians come true and find someone even willing to do it. Which was impossible - anything beyond "We get everything at once, and pay nothing, also free candy" would be voted down in their parliament automatically and was as different political groups made different promises and had different stand points which not ALL could be made true. There was not a single compromise that they could deliver on so everything stalled to death.
So I disagree - it IS incredibly tricky unless you live in a one-man dictatorship (which no one wants) - I guess Hungary could give it a good go, for all the wrong reasons.
Not saying it IS EU specific, but EU as a project has grown exponentially for decades including more and more things and for a lot of countries backing out is close to impossible. For example the...
Not saying it IS EU specific, but EU as a project has grown exponentially for decades including more and more things and for a lot of countries backing out is close to impossible.
For example the EU recently proposed towards researching a blanket minimum wage. My country was adamant that it would either block or refuse to take part in it. Not because we think people shouldn't be allowed to have any set of standard for minimum wages but because our system of work protection doesn't align with it and then being part in a project like that, or in the costs for it, is meaningless for us or if it was implemented, problematic for us.
The issue is that the EU is a massive, critical and understandably ambitious project. A project with one set of motivations at the start and a rather larger, more relevant tbh, motivation further along. This causes problems for member states that needs to be addressed and done so carefully.
It would be very similar if they, for example, wanted to cancel all contracts with the US. What the UK politicians promised was leaving all contracts intact, but start ignoring their part of them. That’s the only way to make it easy.
I think that is a fair example - if you also include the political mess in the backend. The UK didn't exactly chose a path at all, not because of indecisiveness but because it was impossible in any democracy to unite a parliament around a single, controversial, problematic and above all dangerous course of action without trying to hand out promises like it was christmas morning.
I mean how would it come about? Unless one party has absolute control over parliament a complex choice like that is gridlocked by default.
From the article:
[...]
Why are you saying this? Is this mesure bad in your opinion?
I am guessing that the criticism against it is that its not that simple to have a "one time" set in play for a large organization like the EU, the fact that it skips over individual countries who do not want to pay the fee for it - or even can. Since its not a loan, but a donation, the money is basically a higher fee towards the EU and one that many smaller states struggle to raise.
The EU is a mix of different interests and a mix of places who entered based on completely different premises - so there is not a "one size fits all" solution that exists and anything that raises the bar of what the EU is and isn't is complex for member states. The Corona crisis is a good example of how different the reactions are to the pandemic - different places made different choices and now many of those who took those choices see this as a punishment for it.
For smaller countries the EU is massive machinery existing far above their heads and anything they decide can be applied directly. So for them the EU needs to remain a fairly loose union focusing solely on trade and passport agreement otherwise it can become a risk as power is shifted to other larger countries.
What the UK leaving the EU showed, as a hidden benefit, is that its insanely tricky to leave once you're in. That means that whatever the EU decides carries way more relevance as smaller states can't back out.
EDIT: I also share Spel's worry about this. Same as with any state I don't want it to have undue and un-reined power. So any choice that increases its power over its citizens needs to be carefully applied as that power will be used or abused in the future.
EDIT 2: I forgot to add a bias disclosure which is not "in good faith" with such a long and frankly speculative text as this - I am and have always been a EU sceptic since we joined, and a Federalist if we are ment to be in the EU. So please weigh what I have said against that fact.
That is one way of seeing it. I disagree though, not about the English motivations but the narrative spun up around it.
The only way we can test it is if another country choose to leave and how that works - but my guess is that they too will face the exact same problems. Much like joining there will be a lot of empty promises if it relies on a public vote. The difference is that now a large chunk of your economy is bound together with this other entity and the work to divorce yourself from those is monumental, costly and close to impossible to do gracefully.
Like a marriage, it is much harder divorcing than it is to say the initial "I do". One is filled with promise of a future yet realized, the other is filled with practical complexities and several different parties involved socially.
The UK didn't, as far as I see it, mess up so much as - tried wildly to do one thing way more complex than they assumed and then it all collapsed. Then they had to somehow make the promises made in random TV interviews with random politicians come true and find someone even willing to do it. Which was impossible - anything beyond "We get everything at once, and pay nothing, also free candy" would be voted down in their parliament automatically and was as different political groups made different promises and had different stand points which not ALL could be made true. There was not a single compromise that they could deliver on so everything stalled to death.
So I disagree - it IS incredibly tricky unless you live in a one-man dictatorship (which no one wants) - I guess Hungary could give it a good go, for all the wrong reasons.
Not saying it IS EU specific, but EU as a project has grown exponentially for decades including more and more things and for a lot of countries backing out is close to impossible.
For example the EU recently proposed towards researching a blanket minimum wage. My country was adamant that it would either block or refuse to take part in it. Not because we think people shouldn't be allowed to have any set of standard for minimum wages but because our system of work protection doesn't align with it and then being part in a project like that, or in the costs for it, is meaningless for us or if it was implemented, problematic for us.
The issue is that the EU is a massive, critical and understandably ambitious project. A project with one set of motivations at the start and a rather larger, more relevant tbh, motivation further along. This causes problems for member states that needs to be addressed and done so carefully.
I think that is a fair example - if you also include the political mess in the backend. The UK didn't exactly chose a path at all, not because of indecisiveness but because it was impossible in any democracy to unite a parliament around a single, controversial, problematic and above all dangerous course of action without trying to hand out promises like it was christmas morning.
I mean how would it come about? Unless one party has absolute control over parliament a complex choice like that is gridlocked by default.