|
| ▲ | arjie 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| “It’s hard to do X under conditions C” is a good explanation for why “X is crappy” but it seems like a poor reason to re-evaluate “X is crappy”. For a small business owner, larger markets with lower barriers to entry are better than smaller markets with fragmented standards. An explanation for why some markets are smaller and fragmented is interesting academically but it doesn’t change that it’s not worth participating in. |
|
| ▲ | ericmay an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Imagine trying to create a single set of laws to apply to all of the countries in North and South America at the same time. I actually think it would be quite a bit easier than it is to create the EU. There's a lot more broad cultural homogeneity between the countries in the Americas than there is within Europe. Even on the topic of language you've got the vast majority of all peoples speaking some combination of Spanish, English, and Portuguese. And Latin America has a bit more limited geopolitical concerns than Europe does which makes managing some tensions easier than it might otherwise be. But I'm not sure why you are considering "it's hard to create the EU" to be a defense against complaints or criticism related to the EU itself. Maybe it's hard and it won't work and the criticism is reflecting that and others are pointing out that it's a flawed task to begin with for some number of reasons. For my own part I think it has been a fascinating topic and a remarkable accomplishment of statesmanship to even get the EU to this stage, albeit like anything there are some very valid drawbacks. |
| |
| ▲ | raverbashing 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > There's a lot more broad cultural homogeneity between the countries in the Americas than there is within Europe No, not really. Unless you believe the Hollywood view that everything south of the US border has a Sepia filter Intra-Canada commerce is a PITA in itself Do you think Mexico looks in the eyes of half the central American countries? (Mexico being North America, yes I know) |
|
|
| ▲ | veeti 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They weren't asking for a "single set of laws". "Single market" however is a pre-existing concept recognized as "one of the EU's greatest achievements" [1], and lacking regulations in providing said market is what their critique was about. [1] https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market_en |
|
| ▲ | r3trohack3r an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| America does it with 50 states |
| |
| ▲ | voakbasda 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | In theory, true. In practice, state independence has been dead for the better part of a century. The 10th amendment has been eviscerated by the courts. By a strict reading of its relatively simple language, most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. Today, USA is unabbreviated as the “United States of America”, but the country was founded as the “United States for Anerica”. As such, I am strongly in favor of returning to our former glory by stripping the federal government of most of its power and transferring it to the states. I am also wise enough to know that will never happen without a long and bloody revolution, and I am okay with that given the lived reality that has defined my life. We live in tyranny. You may not feel the rolling boil of the water that surrounds you, my fellow Americans, but make no mistake: your goose is cooked. | | |
| ▲ | nemomarx 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Given what the states use their current power to do, I'm pretty fine with it so long as the party I'm like is in control of the federal government. If the last ten or so years of politics have taught us anything it's good to be on top with the tyrants, I guess. |
| |
| ▲ | bryanlarsen an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That analogy would hold only if inter-state commerce was the responsibility of the states rather than the federal government. | |
| ▲ | deno an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | And EU does it with VAT-OSS scheme which was also separate in each country before. There's just no will to do this with EPR because there's too much money and lobbying power in the recycling cartel. |
|
|
| ▲ | marky1991 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah, obviously we wouldn't try to do that. Our laws, cultures, and priorities are wildly different. By this lens, the main problem seems to be that the eu expanded too much and grew too large to actually have a coherent purpose. |
| |
| ▲ | teiferer 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > eu expanded too much and grew too large to actually have a coherent purpose. Anybody seriously thinking that seems completely oblivious to how central EU is to the economies and every day lives of member states. There is a lot to criticise about EU but without it, the Europeans lives would be much worse and their economies would be nothing to speak of. It is very sad that populists managed to popularize the image of the bloated unnecessary monster. Even otherwise intellectually capable folks. |
|
|
| ▲ | deno an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I mean that's what the PPWR directive is already? It's a single set of laws that applies to all member states. They just didn't write any interop so every country has its own system and registration. If it was just single registration for EU and paying for each kg of plastic or electronics to member states (like you do with VAT already via VAT-OSS) then it wouldn't be such a big deal. Even if you didn't have any agreement with recycling companies in each member state and you had to pay the highest per-kg fees it would still be manageable for small sellers. Meanwhile if you want to sell a single circuit board you're looking at several thousand euro in registration fees and several months for processing just to sell legally to 4-5 countries in EU. |
|
| ▲ | lyu07282 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This is comical the liberal in their perpetual confused state: "they are doing their very best!", "you couldn't do it better yourself!". The EU primary function is to serve capital interests to protect neoliberalism across the EU at all cost. It's the perpetual shock doctrine, thatcher politics for all, there is no alternative, dead-end, end-of-history, its what you would get when you put the IMF in charge of a continent. Literally everything is falling apart, the fascists scapegoat irrelevant migrants for the mouth breathing median-voter/peasant while the liberals are haplessly groveling at their imperial masters and censure Spain for being an unruly vassal. |
