At the end of 2021, a new government was formed in Germany. The coalition partners from the SPD, FDP and the Greens presented an agreement, which explicitly ...
Because the EU is not democratic at all. For example, the Comission president (von der Leyen) wasnt even running in the election, but still got the post, probably because Germany decided it. Which is the next problem, Germany has way too much power in the EU, and is the main country that benefits from it (along with France, and other northern countries). But conditions in the south and east of Europe (Spain, Italy, Greece, etc) have become worse and worse over the last decades.
Interesting. While I’m equally appalled by the Spitzenkandidaten principle not having been upheld, stating that the nomination of Ursula von der Leyen was decided by the German government would be a massive simplification of an insanely long, complicated, and weird debate among different European political actors. Particularly, the resistance to the lead candidates (Weber, Timmermans), came mainly from the French government (see here).
I do agree with the problem analysis that some democratic features are underdeveloped though. But I’d argue that that’s exactly why a federalisation is so necessary: Through shifting power away from the intergovernmental institutions (European Council, Council of the European Union) towards the democratically elected and accountable institutions (most notably the European Parliament), we can ensure that no single government can exercise too much power in the political decision-making process.
The exact same goes for the conditions in Southern/Eastern/Southeastern Europe (which I’d be willing to say have not ONLY worsened over the last decades, as your comment kind of implies). A completion of the banking and monetary union, establishment of a common fiscal union and most importantly, advancing the social rights of EU citizens are crucial in addressing the imbalance of conditions that you describe. Maintaining the status quo or introducing even more borders and differences between the different European states on the other hand does absolutely nothing to alleviate this and only adds to imbalances in economic and political power.
This has been at least partially caused by the Euro. Germany and France benefit from it being strong, While peripheral countries benefit from it being weaker. At the end of the day, the Eurozone and the freedom of movement between member states functions as a parasitic supranational structure that siphons wealth and cheap, exploitable labour away from the poorer countries like Bulgaria, Greece, Romania etc and funnels it into the core countries. Look at the effect this trend has had on the Baltic countries; in Latvia, 23 percent of their working age population has been lost since the early 2000s, and population overall is in sharp decline. This is the effect of the EU as a supranational structure.
May I ask why you think this would be terrible? :)
Because the EU is not democratic at all. For example, the Comission president (von der Leyen) wasnt even running in the election, but still got the post, probably because Germany decided it. Which is the next problem, Germany has way too much power in the EU, and is the main country that benefits from it (along with France, and other northern countries). But conditions in the south and east of Europe (Spain, Italy, Greece, etc) have become worse and worse over the last decades.
Interesting. While I’m equally appalled by the Spitzenkandidaten principle not having been upheld, stating that the nomination of Ursula von der Leyen was decided by the German government would be a massive simplification of an insanely long, complicated, and weird debate among different European political actors. Particularly, the resistance to the lead candidates (Weber, Timmermans), came mainly from the French government (see here).
I do agree with the problem analysis that some democratic features are underdeveloped though. But I’d argue that that’s exactly why a federalisation is so necessary: Through shifting power away from the intergovernmental institutions (European Council, Council of the European Union) towards the democratically elected and accountable institutions (most notably the European Parliament), we can ensure that no single government can exercise too much power in the political decision-making process.
The exact same goes for the conditions in Southern/Eastern/Southeastern Europe (which I’d be willing to say have not ONLY worsened over the last decades, as your comment kind of implies). A completion of the banking and monetary union, establishment of a common fiscal union and most importantly, advancing the social rights of EU citizens are crucial in addressing the imbalance of conditions that you describe. Maintaining the status quo or introducing even more borders and differences between the different European states on the other hand does absolutely nothing to alleviate this and only adds to imbalances in economic and political power.
This has been at least partially caused by the Euro. Germany and France benefit from it being strong, While peripheral countries benefit from it being weaker. At the end of the day, the Eurozone and the freedom of movement between member states functions as a parasitic supranational structure that siphons wealth and cheap, exploitable labour away from the poorer countries like Bulgaria, Greece, Romania etc and funnels it into the core countries. Look at the effect this trend has had on the Baltic countries; in Latvia, 23 percent of their working age population has been lost since the early 2000s, and population overall is in sharp decline. This is the effect of the EU as a supranational structure.
I think you should ask instead “who he thinks it would be horrible for”.
Definitely a who question and not a why.