Comment by shiroiushi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by shiroiushi | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's amazing the EU has lasted this long really. The USA tried something somewhat similar back in 1781, and it was a complete failure: they organized a bunch of sovereign states (formerly colonies, but they became sovereign states after the Revolutionary War just before) into a confederation, where the central government had no real power at all. The resulting country couldn't even defend itself against pirates. They finally got sick of it in 1789 and threw out this form of government in favor of a constitutional republic with a much stronger federalized government. Over 235 years later, that form of government still persists, though it's really showing its warts and the Constitution really needs a rewrite IMO, but despite its enormous flaws in the modern age it's still a lot better than the decentralized mess that is the EU. If you want real economic power in the face of competing superpowers, you need centralized policy and authority, not a bunch of semi-sovereign states all squabbling with each other and no one able to make a decision.

I agree that a stronger central EU government, more like a federal state would be highly desirable and more efficient in many ways today.

But you are ignoring a ton of stuff here, too. The EU comprises territories that are far more different than the territories of the US. The EU has 24 languages spoken, and its poorest member state has a GDP that is a factor of 9 lower than its richest (excluding Luxembourg). While it would be nice to have strong decision-making, how do you make sure that the decisions are also perceived as fair and democratically justified? Imagine a president who doesn't even speak the native language of the vast majority of people in the country. Would that person be seen as legitimately representing the people? How do you even begin to organize public political discussions in a situation where most people can't read the same newspaper/watch the same content? It's far from obvious that any of this is achievable. It's easy to fantasize about a competent, legitimate central government. But how do you construct it from the pieces given?

The political analogue of the EU might be India rather than the US.

Historically, the EU also comprises the territories that for more than half the time period since the inception of the USA provided all the globally dominant economic and military superpowers, expanding the areas they ruled to the peak of colonialism in 1914 [1]. So the squabbling mess of European powers, barely coordinating under a balance of power system at home, was dramatically successful militarily and economically (at an even more dramatic human cost). Contrast the Quing dynasty, that had a central government. At least some historians I've read argue that maintaining the central government consumed so many resources that it was a major reason for the widening gulf in economic and military might between European power and China during the 19th century.

[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/graphics/1914-co...

These are all great points, and of course, I didn't mean to trivialize any of them. I can't say a federal state would actually work for the EU, precisely because of these issues.

>Imagine a president who doesn't even speak the native language of the vast majority of people in the country.

This actually reminds me of Spain. Their leaders, while they speak the native language of a majority, it's not a vast majority, with very significant minority-language areas (Catalan, Basque, Galician). And that country sometimes seems to be barely holding itself together, with Catalonia attempting an independence referendum a few years ago that didn't end well.

However, this is a quibble, but as an American I'd argue that if the EU did federalize, they shouldn't have a president at all. The US has a presidential system and it kinda sucks (see: frequent government shutdowns). I think a parliamentary system works better in practice, or perhaps something resembling Germany's system (since Germany also has a federal government).

>So the squabbling mess of European powers, barely coordinating under a balance of power system at home, was dramatically successful militarily and economically (at an even more dramatic human cost)

I really don't think those days are coming back. Europe was so successful back then because it was far more developed technologically. That advantage is long gone now. Plus, Europe's population just isn't what it was. And I'm not a historian, but I thought the reason China didn't develop as fast was all self-inflicted: they intentionally turned inwards and refused outside contact.

Anyway, perhaps you're right and the current state of the EU is the best they can do with their circumstances. Still, I suspect it's not enough: I don't see this as a stable system. They can't even keep one or two of their own member states from torpedoing all progress, and if the US weren't there to defend them from Russia, they appear to be powerless there too.

Their leaders, while they speak the native language of a majority, it's not a vast majority,

It seems to be a pretty vast majority, actually. According to a 2019 Pew Research poll, we have the following breakdown of languages spoken at home:

  Spanish (81%), Catalan (8%), Valencian (4%), Galician (3%), Basque (1%)

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/01/06/speaking-...

Having lived and worked in the US for a decade, as a German, and having had time to think about many things:

I think a key difference between how the US works and how Europe works lies in the private sector and the people. When you build a new company in the US, you have a lot of private infrastructure and people to be active in all of the states. In Europe, this does not exist in that form. Here, all the investors are focused on their own country. Sure we have plenty of firms active in many EU countries, but the level of support especially for new firms is orders of magnitude lower than in the US. From languages to social issues to attitude and expectations of common people, the EU is much more compartmentalized and it is significantly harder to have EU scale.

So there are two issues, and the side of the government is only one. The private sector and the investors have to do their job too and provide their own side of the EU wide infrastructure.

We also don't have EU-wide media that needs to support the development of a shared EU identity, and many other things that unite the US population as one people. Much of that has to come from the private sector, from the rich, from investors. But apparently they don't think big enough here in the EU?

Perhaps, but I wonder how much having so many different languages contributes to that. In the US, most people all speak English (though there's a growing Spanish-speaking population, but even here most younger ones probably end up being bilingual), so there's not that much to do for your company to do business in all 50 states, depending on just how much interaction with state governments you require. And state laws are all pretty similar usually. Not so in the EU.

Lack of a common language must be a factor in scaling - the amount of effort printing required information in different languages is already an overhead (e..g instructions on medications).

Also in the US, somebody in California can give telephone support to somebody in Rhode Island; not so easy to get somebody in Sweden to give telephone support to somebody in Italy though.

Glass half full. No civil war was needed to keep the EU together. It lost a member without any bloodshed. It's exactly the kind of imperfection we admire when we compare democracies to China - less effective than central control but more free.

Arguably, the US civil war wasn't strictly necessary. If it weren't for the slavery issue, I think it's would have been better for the northern states to just let the south secede. Even with the slavery issue, and if they had not bothered fighting a war to keep those states in the union, it's arguable that the south would have failed economically before long anyway, especially if the north had instituted sanctions.

As for comparing democracies to China, the democracies of the EU are lucky China isn't next door to them. They're already completely unable to defend themselves against Russia, which is also expansionist and aggressive, but at least doesn't have China's industrial power. If the EU were next to China, they'd be completely defenseless against Chinese expansionism.

It just turns out the USA as it is wasn't created out of free will. Say whatever you like but the EU was.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com