The enthusiasts need to temper their dreams and expectations - EU is doing fine, and doesn't need to always become more powerful or more integrated. Especially not now, when citizens don't want it.
Citation needed. While there is some anti-European sentiment in all member states those are almost always in the minority. There are a lot of people who want more integration.
>The people pushing for more integration are politicians and bureaucrats, not normal people.
That's simply not true. There are multiple civil society organizations pushing for a closer union. People are voting for parties that are explicitly pro-European.
Would the EU do just fine after losing the UK and a country like France? Would Germans still love the EU so much after they realize they're paying twice as much into the EU as the next country? Maybe you could argue it would, but I guess it seems far from obvious to me.
Germans took up way more monetary responsibility during Corona. E.g. they took various patients from Netherlands and paid for the care themself. Same with the financial crisis that was a result of Corona, Germany was happy to help out other countries.
Now if you look at what Netherlands gains out of the EU (so what the EU is worth to NL) it is about 7 to 8 times the net payment. Limiting the net amount paid is good, but the focus on net payment without looking at what you get is quite short sighted.
See e.g. UK where just paying the custom agents will cost an equivalent as the EU payments.
It would be shameful if we didn't, because helping poorer countries grow is the entire point of these transfer payments. The bigger issue is that there is lots of abuse and it doesn't actually improve the grand picture. Money is nice but only if it's used responsibly. If there was a way to reduce corruption in Eastern European countries they would grow on their own without any transfer payments. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your perspective), that's outside the scope of the EU.
It's the age old "give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish".
That there should be internal talks about foreign policies is pretty much accepted, also having common environmental policies.
If you suggest a common welfare program, you will quickly find closed doors.
Honestly, I think the support in general is higher with people not interested in politics, aside from the enthusiasts that already dream of a republic.
Speaking of which, why call it the European Union when we could have called it the European Empire. Some things are so obvious...
So when you satisfy on group (good enough) you will make the the other half unhappy.
The real question is: will this happen fast enough to avoid hitting a no-way-back point in climate change?
For sure, that is all inaccurate in one way or the other, but people are busy or in bad situations, leaving their enthusiasm behind them.
If it is, why isn't it cracking down more seriously on, say, GDPR violations already? Is giving companies multiple years to adjust still not enough? Or does a serious enforcement of its laws not fall under the umbrella of doing fine (nor sure if pun intended)?
GDPR violations are handled per country btw. Further, GDPR is a regulation which EU member countries turned into law.
You're talking about the populist dregs of society. Let's not make the very american mistake of validating that rhetoric by considering it true.
Exactly! That's what the EU should be and nothing more.
It has always had a political element.
To quote a 1963 Court of Justice judgment:
"The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of member states, Community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty, but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the Community. "
It's the attempt at unifying countries internal policies that I don't see the point of.
Hottest examples - Russia/Belarus/Ukraine, Greece/Turkey, Nordstream, the whole migrants-in-Mediteranean thing and so on.
Promoting peace is listed as a goal on https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en
What if Germany and France decides to go for endless talking and compromises to Russia, giving away parts of eastern europe as part of the deal to keep peace?
It seems to me like the "best case" scenario geopolitically and economically for EU.
It has always had a political element.
To quote a 1963 Court of Justice judgment:
"The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of member states, Community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty, but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the Community. "