Europe
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
view the rest of the comments
Why we allow clearly undemocratic countries like Hungary under Orban to remain in the EU, is a much better question than asking why we should allow large countries to overrule the legitimate concerns of smaller democratic countries.
A thought on this:
A fair system (and our current system, in theory) is based on the principle of “one person, one vote.”
Accordingly, the large countries would have to have significantly more votes than the small ones, in proportion to their population.
Because right now, I don’t quite understand why the vote of a Luxembourg citizen is worth as much as that of 100,000 Germans. In my opinion, that has little to do with fairness... at least as long as the large countries are still footing the bulk of the budget.
To put it bluntly: If, in a village of 100 people, only one person had the right to a personal veto, we certainly wouldn’t be talking about an equitable, fair system.
The problem is that in the system you propose, smaller countries would have near zero incentive to participate because they'd always be overridden by larger countries.
Agreed that there may be issues such as Orban, but that's a poor excuse to completely overwhelm other small countries' opinions.
I get the problem and I don't claim that my thoughts would be a ideal solution.
Currently, however, we face the opposite problem: The larger countries are increasingly being asked why they bear the lion’s share of the costs only to then have their sovereignty restricted by countries like Hungary (EU law takes precedence over national law).
Both problems—the lack of representation for both the small and the large countries—pose a threat to the alliance in their own ways.
I don’t know which of the two is more serious… but intuitively, I would say that a withdrawal by the large countries would hit the alliance much harder than one by the small ones, since a large portion of the budget (from which small states in particular benefit greatly) would then be lost.
The problem with large countries potentially leaving is that everybody loses out on global power impact. It would only be viable, imho, of the difference of opinions would be vast and would constantly have a negative impact.
After all, nobody agrees with somebody else all of the time.
A lot of other things would need to change first in the EU before we could even consider this objection to be relevant, and aside from that it is common to have minority protections or required super-majority rules that also in theory give a minority greater power than what their number alone would give them. But as it stands, the EU is a voluntary association of states and not a federal state, and it would have never been so successful if it were something else. In fact, it would likely desintegrate relatively quickly if the people that push for less independence of the states get their way. Most likely it would devolve into a rump union with France and Germany, plus a few client states that are economically too dependent to leave. Proponents of this call that a union of two speeds, but in reality it would be the death of the EU.
I get your point but I guess this is where out views differ.
In my view, cooperation beats competition—always.
The problem with the unanimity rule is that it makes the EU as a whole extremely vulnerable to outside influence. Russia, China, the U.S.—none of these nations has an interest in a functioning EU. A divided continent at war with itself would be much better for these power centers, in line with the “divide and conquer” principle. Currently, it’s enough for these powerful blocs (relative to the individual EU states) to focus their resources on exerting influence in a single member state to paralyze the entire bloc. In the turbulent times ahead, THAT will be the end of the EU—not a further increase in cooperation among the states.
If further integration is not possible due to the individual states’ aspirations for sovereignty, we at least need a two-speed EU to secure the EU’s global position by further increasing the cost advantages of cooperation.
And to put it in utilitarian terms: In exchange for limiting their sovereignty, the small countries gain maximum benefits through cooperation with the bloc’s major economic powers. I see no other scenario in which a voluntary or involuntary reduction in sovereignty would lead to such benefits… which is why the EU is such an attractive and successful model.
It's not "increased cooperation" if the larger states impose their will onto the smaller states, that is coercion.
And I think you misunderstand what makes the EU attractive for member states. It is exactly that the EU isn't an imperial power where the core rules over the perifery that makes it attractive.
You might think that the EU can only survive among the big sharks by becoming one itself, but this is neither desireable on principle, nor is it so clear cut. Historically, alliances of nations often defeated imperial powers, both economically and militarily.
Historically, many alliances have been broken up and subjugated through deliberate outside influence as well...
Let’s hope you’re right and I’m wrong.
When I look around the continent today, however, I’m worried that self-serving politicians in a representative system will destroy the alliance of states out of personal greed... even if you’re fundamentally right.
/edit:
It is if it happens on a voluntary basis.
If it is voluntary then there is obviously no need to remove veto powers.
So what's your problem with a two-speed EU? Or did I misunderstand you?
Under this model, the small countries retain their veto power, but those that wish to do so can deepen their cooperation independently of that, without it being binding on the rest.
A rump EU where one or two larger states rule over some economically dependent client states in their perifery is not attractive to join, hence the "two-speed" EU might as well be called a dead EU.
I don't quite get it.
If individual EU member states want to cooperate more closely (for example, by harmonizing national standards, deposit-return systems, or who knows what else), this must be possible without a small EU member state blocking it with a veto.
There are now three ways to achieve this: Either the participating countries create another confederation alongside the EU to facilitate this voluntary cooperation, or the countries do so in the form of a “two-speed EU.”, or we get or we'll end up with a hodgepodge of bilateral and multilateral agreements (which is exactly what the Union was formed to prevent). I fail to see why a small EU member state should have the right to veto a decision made among several other EU partners that does not affect it.
As far as I understand, that's the “two-speed EU” approach.
Individual member states can already do that without any problems. See the Schengen treaty or the Euro.
The only reason why some larger members want to remove the veto clause is to coerce some smaller members into following regulations that are only to the benefit of the larger countries. If it wasn't so they could just make another treaty and invite other members to participate. But they know that they would not succeed with that, so they try to force it though in a coercive manner.
Okay, so I was misinformed, or rather, I didn't think it through enough. Thanks for the clarification!
If we are not able to deal with countries falling the path of hungary* and our only response is to kick them out of the union, then we shall accept that the EU is condemned to dissapear.
Picture a hungary that is still rulled by orban. You kick them out, then what? Slovakia... poland? What about those countries that are constantly on the verge of falling into putin's hand? We have to be better than that.
It's a fair point. It's also much easier to be all Billy Big-Balls "just kick them out" when it's Hungary - but what about when Germany elects AfD or France elects Le Pen; do we kick them out too?
A federation of democracies needs to be resilient to the fact that democracies don't always elect people we like. Kicking members out every time that happens is not reslience, it's a deathwish.
If the EU is taken over by fascists, because that is likely to happen if we remove all the guardrails and wait for one of the big countries to elect AfD/FN etc, then yes that is a deathwish 🤦
it's a market.
Because smaller countries often act entirely egotistically, and their particular interests have ramifications for millions upon millions of people from other member nations. That a country of a million can take a union of 450 million hostage should be unacceptable for the EU.
And large countries don't act egoistically?
If any country acts like that it should be shown the door in a community that depends on voluntary cooperation and not coercion by the majority.
It's great how America provides a blatant example of the reverse and you completely ignore it. That's a skill.