Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "The EU Should NOT Accept New Members. Yet." video.

@Nowherenear-w1d True. We need a EU constitution that mandates democracy and allows the EU legal system to punish snd kick out members that doesn't fulfill democratic minimum standards. But other then that removing the veto for anything applying to all members needs to stay. Indeed the veto isn't enough...
5
Removing the veto would be the single biggest mistake we can make, despite how Hungry and Poland is abusing it...
3
 @EUMadeSimple 1 country not having that power would be equally bad. There needs to be veto powers for anything that member states can't opt out of or at the very least modify to local needs.
3
@UhOhUmm The US is only "ahead" because they measure economy in GDP... In reality the aspects of our economy that actually matters ends up being better in Europe then the US. The US economy is less healthy, debt fueled, exploitative with higher wage perhaps, but you have to work more hours for said wage, and the take home wage after taxes enda up being lower when you factor in the costs of the benefits of living here in Europe. The US is objectively a worse place to live. And behind Europe in a number of areas like quality products, always focusing on short term gain at the cost of quality, long time horizons etc. There's of course individual companies in the US that's genuinely doing great and have quality products. But overall the US culture is struggling and sick at multiple levels. The diversity in government forms in Europe is part of why we've avoided the same trap. The federal model is strangling the US. And the country would have been better off with a confederate model. So does Europe. I agree that some common standards, like requiring democracy, equal voting rights etc needs to be enforced at a higher level. But that's about it.
3
I don't think tiers alone is the solution. I think that regions with tiers within them might be a better solution. Different regions in Europe have different concerns and needs. Allowing for differences in laws between them while maintaining compatability is better then to try to force the exact same laws on each region.
1
@CedarHunt No, the US states doesn't even come close to have enough self governance for many states in Europe, while other states need more integration then the US states.
1
@vadergrd Still it's needed.
1
@alexshevchenko2494 More integration isn't a "upgrade". I live in a country that can't join the EU as long as it insists on the current system of homogenous laws. I live in Norway. Having the same laws everywhere doesn't work in a continent as diverse as Europe. The goal should be compatible laws instead of everyone having the same ones. Also, veto powers is essential for the EU to even exist ad a entity, I promise you that if there's no veto power a lot of people in Manny EU countries will turn into EU sceptics. Honestly veto power isn't enough. As a principle a European country should never be forced into any EU law against their will. It's irrelevant how the representatives in the EU is elected or how the legislative process is done, you simply can't have a well functioning democracy representing that many people as low population and high population areas will have different needs, coastal and inland areas have different needs, rugged and mountainous areas have different needs from flat lowlands. Dry and wet areas have different needs. Cold and hot areas have different needs. And each of the larger culture groups of Europe have different needs. Likewise the different religions have different needs. And each individual culture and language has different needs. Already with low population countries like Norway with a population of about 5 million we're already struggling with getting a diverse enough representation to ensure that everyone is heard. And yes, it's undemocratic to lett any majority of people make decisions alone. And in the case of a WU without veto rights that's most definitely the case as the urban high population areas of the yellow banana and other high population areas ends up with the bulk of the political power at the cost of rural communities that's too low population to ever even be represented in a parliament representing a whole bloody continent.
1
@alexshevchenko2494 And no, a US senate system would be a disaster. Even 90% of countries agree on something enforcing that on the remaining countries would still be downright wrong. The problem with Hungary etc is that they're doing democratic backsliding. And while I'm definitely in favour of a confederate model of governing Europe and think that the lack of diversity in how US states is governed is part of the reason why the US is as horribly ruled as it is, I do think that enforcing the rule of law and democracy is valid. But not any other ethics or laws.
1
@alexshevchenko2494 India, the US and Russia are all cases of poorly run countries that absolutely should be reduced in size to function better as democracies. And the federal model is exactly why those countries works poorly and their citizens are suffering. If you think that a confederation can't hold together, just look at Switzerland from 1291 till 1848. The country was a confederation for all of that time. So a confederation can absolutely last a long time. Likewise the UN has had most of the worlds countries as members practically since the war, and that has worked just fine. I don't mind countries sharing laws, I'd like tighter integration in the form of a UN army, shared taxes etc. But the fundamental principle of power going from the bottom up and not the other way is essential to a majority of Europeans. Yes, a majority of people support the UN but most people want it as a supernational entity, like the UN, not as a new "United States of Europe" When we're talking about multi-tier Europe it's not because anyone wants more integration into such a USEU but because the EU even in its current form doesn't fit for many nations, both inside and outside the union, and said nations would like something with another form then the current EU that gives us more national sovereignty without being entirely excluded.
1
@alexshevchenko2494 You don't need a federation or anything like a European state in order to stand up against China, Russia and the US. But all things considered the US is preferable to the EU acting as a state due to the distance to the US making it somewhat easier to break out in the future. But the smaller countries that makes up the majority of the EU members exists because we've been able to play the major countries against each other. Not because we've been trying to foolishly pretend to be superpowers like some former colonial powers like to pretend to still be...
1
@alexshevchenko2494 I agree that I'd like to see all of those nations join eventually. But I disagree with both the timeline you have in mind and the removal of the veto power. And trust me, a lot of countries will veto any attempt at removing the veto, not just the usual black sheep of Europe. Hopefully we can eventually include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia etc too with time.
1
@alexshevchenko2494 What those countries have in common isn't being small, but being neutral. Yes, alliances are needed to deal with hostile neighbors. But that doesn't mean that you need to give up your sovereignty. Or that you can't make use of the different interests of the major powers. Just look at Turkey being a NATO member yet playing the West and Russia against each other to achieve geopolitical goals. I'm not arguing against alliances. But alliances are made between sovereign states. As for unions... We've spent about six hundred years under some kind of union or other... Trust me, we know all to well how bad a union can be for the junior partners. We've suffered under the Danes and Swedes both. In part because our leaders indeed though that a union would make us stronger (against the Hanseatic League at the time). But the drawbacks outweighed the benefits for us.
1
@alexshevchenko2494 Of course we need Turkey. Although I hope that the Danube can help make connecting with the Caucasus without Turkish good will a bit easier (once we get Serbia on board or if we can make a channel bypassing Serbia). Likewise undersea tunnels can help us connect with them. It's going to take years either way... Russia is another reason why a multi-tier EU is needed, as the various Russian regions could potentially be candidates for such a EU in a really long term, but only if they're in a separate tier from the rest of Europe while we get their economy going. Just like East Germany it's going to take a long time to get Eastern Europe up to western standards and to a point where removing all the barriers can be done without negative consequences like depopulation and brain drain in the east and havock for the western economies.
1
@alexshevchenko2494 Poland and Czechia didn't benefit from their alliances because of limited power projection power from the UK and France. Geography matters. That's part of why Norway joined NATO early while Finland and Sweden preferred to stay neutral. We have a coastline easy to reach for sea powers with no choke points between us and the Americans. NATO is also significantly stronger then the UK or France was back then. Also, the allies did declare war on Germany when they invaded Poland, taking Hitler by surprise. The French generals where just scared to push their advantage...
1