,
15 tweets,
9 min read
Read on Twitter
This thread is quite interesting - not just for some of the comments but for a meta reason as well (thread)
As to the comments, as you expect, you get a fair share of unjustified criticism (for things that are not within the EU remit), people who want less / more EU competences. But you also get stringent criticism of single EU measures.
There‘s some very justified systemic criticism (@simonjhix criticises the Strasbourg travel circus) and some that deserve more reflection. But let‘s get to the meta point, shall we?
@simonjhix What is fascinating to me is how and why such a thread makes sense at all and how and why we perceive answers as meaningful in the light of two thoughts.
@simonjhix 1) Would we ever talk in similar terms about a state? And 2) Are we setting unrealistic goals against which any construct would fall short?
@simonjhix Let’s take an example: @joncstone says it is not easy to understand the EU - and it could be easier. That is, as such, certainly correct.
@simonjhix @joncstone But many things about a state are difficult to understand. The UK has convoluted historic particularities. Did you know you do cannot step down as an MP? You get appointed to be Crown Stewart and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham. Yup.
@simonjhix @joncstone And yet, nobody would ever ask “What is your largest problem with the UK” and answer “the UK fails to properly explain its parliamentary procedure”. We accept things for what they are. And they are certainly never turned into an argument against the institution.
@simonjhix @joncstone This goes quite far and captures news reporting. One of my favourite issues: Notice how after 40 years of EU we still do not even use the term. Advocate General? No. We have invented terms supposedly “explaining” it to the population. A Lawyer of the court. A top lawyer etc.
@simonjhix @joncstone Note how we do not do this for countries. It is the German chancellor. Not the German Prime Minister. Articles write about the Electoral College even though only 15 readers might truly know how that works. We say “Senate” not the “US House of Lords sort of thingy”.
@simonjhix @joncstone Which brings me to issue two. Let me illustrate with a tweet by the always extremely smart @Frances_Coppola
@simonjhix @joncstone @Frances_Coppola Again I would say she’s right. The big countries (France, Germany, UK, to a lesser extent Italy) have mostly unwritten, in the UK case also many written privileges.
@simonjhix @joncstone @Frances_Coppola To some extent, this is not unwanted, though. It is a tenet of democracy that the UK has more say than Luxembourg, Germany more sway than the Netherlands and France more than Lithuania. They simply have vastly more voters. England outvotes Scotland every time.
@simonjhix @joncstone @Frances_Coppola As to the unwanted side-effects of this it is important to ask: what’s the alternative? Power is power and even in a rules-based system you cannot equalise entirely. But without the rules-based system power is what states go by. Exclusively.
@simonjhix @joncstone @Frances_Coppola So yes. The small states sometimes get a bad deal in a rules based system. But the system is set up to protect them (e.g. as to voting rights). And every political science study seems to suggest that they would be those who suffer the most outside a rules based system.
