• JoeKrogan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I dont agree with this. More centralized power just makes it harder for local and national changes and also makes it easier for lobbyists to undermine the interests of the general population for their own benefit

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Oh, you’re not alone. People think the choice is between national interests or Europe.

      You won’t agree with me on this, but in reality the choice is arguably between European interests or Chinese/foreign interests. Instead of choosing strength in unity, we’re choosing to be divided and conquered.

      Just look at the result of prioritizing national rather than European interests for defense. Not enough industrial capacity to support Ukraine, redundancies, limits on benefits of scale, taxpayer money disproportionately funding jobs in the US defense industry rather here in Europe, and Europe being to weak to scare off Russia from interference or perhaps even worse.

      Just look at the greatest Eurosceptic parties. Inevitably they have ties to Russia or are pro-Russian.

      Just look at alleged interference in the brexit referendum. The Kremlin had a good laugh about that one.

      I don’t expect to change your mind on this, and don’t worry yours is the popular opinion. A European state won’t happen. But I hope you understand why plenty of people are exasperated by this. Continued division will accelerate our decline, and rather than being able to defend our geostrategic interests, we will continue to be pushed around by superpowers. And it won’t be inevitable. It will be a choice that we made.

    • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      The power already is centralized to a strong degree. But with an actual statelike system we would have full legislative power through democraticly elected parliaments and governments. With that more changes could happen, as they would now be represented, instead of having the mutant-organizations of comission and council without triple and quadruple indirectness between them and the citizens. That is where the lobbying power is so successfull. Because there is no democratic representation and hence no accountability in these structures.

    • nao@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      More centralized power just makes it harder for local and national changes

      Would that be a problem?

      • souperk@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was wondering the same thing. What would that entail for the less influential countries within the EU?

        Here in Greece we could use some help. Our legal system is broken, the freedom of press is non-existent, police brutality is at an all time high, we don’t have a train network (in general bad transport infrastructure), to name a few issues.

        On the other hand, gentrification is as bad as it is right now, having to move out of the city I was born in and have loved all of my life because I cannot afford rent won’t be fun.

      • SnuggleSnail@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is it even true? USA has the same concept, and a lot of decisions are on a state level. China also has a lot of different local policies, even though in a totalitarian structure. Some cities have their own government, because they are so big. Germany has 16 states, which also do their own laws.

        I don’t think it would be like France, where everything is mandated from Paris.