What does democracy even mean when your vote can’t even in principle influence the laws of where you live? Why should any populace grant its authority to enact certain laws to a larger entity that doesn’t share its values?
Ideally, every competence would be passed as far down as possible, but not further. That being said, there are violations in both directions. One way, agricultural policy (CAP) does not make sense on EU level and should be dealt on a more local level. The other way, army should be dealt with on the EU level—one big army provides better deterrence than 27 small ones. Also, there are violations at national level. E.g. France would really benefit from being less centralized. But in each case, it’s easy to see why there’s no political will to change the status quo. It’s coordination failures all the way down.
What I write about egg shredding is of positions hold a few years ago, but it illustrates the principle:
In Germany, we don’t really like to throw little baby chickens in the shredder. If Germany would be completely on it’s own we would require eggs to screened early to prevent it from happening, even if that means that our eggs are a few cents more expensive. However, we are living next to Poland. If we would require eggs produced in Germany to do more egg screening and then cheaper Polish eggs outcompete the German eggs in our supermarkets we don’t want that. A common market means that we can’t simply forbid Polish eggs, so there’s a need for a shared agricultural policy that somehow brings the different ideas about how eggs should be produced together.
If one country decides to increase subsidies for apples and then outcompetes other European countries for apples or creates pressures for them also to add apple subsidies to protect their apple growers that isn’t great either.
If you have a common market common agricultural policy does make some sense.
Isn’t the obvious solution to allow only early-screened eggs to be sold in Germany, no matter where they came from? And similar for other kinds of goods that can be made in unethical or polluting ways: require both domestic producers and importers to prove that the goods were produced ethically/cleanly/etc. And this doesn’t require a shared policy between many countries, each country can impose such rules on its own.
Isn’t there an obvious solution to that: allow only early-screened eggs to be sold in Germany, no matter where they came from?
That violates the rules of a common market which is the core of what the EU is about. This is the logic why Dominic Cummings considered Brexit to be the obvious solution.
Recently, the Trump administration was arguing that some EU rules for things like car safety block US cars to be sold in Europe so as part of his tariff threads he pushed through rules so that now cars that EU rules used to consider to be unsafe to be sold. Trade agreements limits how countries can limit what’s sold in them and the common free market is a trade agreement that everything can be sold everywhere in the EU.
I don’t think that violates free trade. Trump may think so, but that’s on him.
Putting a tariff on foreign cars certainly violates free trade, because it discriminates between domestic and foreign sellers. But requiring e.g. catalytic converters on all cars sold in your country, domestic and foreign alike, is okay. Banning leaded gasoline in your country is likewise okay, as long as you don’t discriminate on the origin of that gasoline. Countries should be allowed to pass laws like that.
ETA: looking at actual history, it seems different European countries banned leaded gasoline at different times, and the EU was already well established by then. Which seems to confirm my point.
In practice, it’s all a matter of trade negotiations. Trade deals specify on what grounds countries can pass goods from being sold. Plenty of trade agreements then have clauses for Investor-State-Dispute-Settlement to enforce what was negotiated which reduces countries sovereignty to just do what they want.
Trump did get the EU to allow US goods to be sold that were previously blocked form being sold because of regulation like car safety regulation.
EU’s rules are quite complex. The general rule is in Article 34 of the TFEU:
Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States.
The provisions of Articles 34 and 35 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.
Then there are plenty of more specific EU directives ChatGPT lists Regulation 2019⁄515 and Directive 1999/74/EC as mattering to the egg question.
I get your argument. But the same one can be made about anything. French government subsidizing French cinema? Not fair, because it puts German cinema at a disadvantage. Better housing policies in Poland? Shouldn’t be allowed, because lower rents mean lower salaries, which means cheaper industrial goods, which, again, puts Germany at a disadvantage. And so on. But in a federal state, the members should compete on at least something. If they don’t, if they are forced to behave exactly the same in all regards, what’s the point of having a federal state in the first place? A centralized one would do.
French government subsidizing French cinema? Not fair, because it puts German cinema at a disadvantage.
I think when you look at it you will find that French films are not a major source of competition for German cinema. Even with French subsidies, German don’t focus on watching French films. If anything the are watching films from Hollywood.
Better housing policies in Poland?
Everyone wants better policies, the key question is what policies are actually better. If Poland for example allows housing to be build with less concern for parking spaces than Germany which results in cheaper housing, the cost of having less parking space is born by the Polish citizens that live near that housing that could be constructed with less parking spaces.
Having people be able to trade off availability of parking spaces vs. cheaper rent in different local jurisdiction makes a lot of sense as the relevant costs are born by the local population.
The same goes for playground construction. If Berlin wants to require people who build a house to construct playgrounds and Warsaw doesn’t and that leads to lower rent in Warsaw, that’s a matter of local preferences and it doesn’t make sense to decide on requirements for playground construction on the EU level.
As citizen of Berlin, I would like lower rents, less parking spaces and less playground construction requirements, but I think it’s reasonable to make that decision on the state level (Berlin is both city and a state within Germany).
That’s different than many aspects of farming policy, where it’s not about benefits that are accrued locally.
But in a federal state, the members should compete on at least something.
In the EU states and lower level institutions compete on plenty, that’s not a good argument to make if you want to criticize the status quo.
Ideally, every competence would be passed as far down as possible, but not further. That being said, there are violations in both directions. One way, agricultural policy (CAP) does not make sense on EU level and should be dealt on a more local level. The other way, army should be dealt with on the EU level—one big army provides better deterrence than 27 small ones. Also, there are violations at national level. E.g. France would really benefit from being less centralized. But in each case, it’s easy to see why there’s no political will to change the status quo. It’s coordination failures all the way down.
What I write about egg shredding is of positions hold a few years ago, but it illustrates the principle:
In Germany, we don’t really like to throw little baby chickens in the shredder. If Germany would be completely on it’s own we would require eggs to screened early to prevent it from happening, even if that means that our eggs are a few cents more expensive. However, we are living next to Poland. If we would require eggs produced in Germany to do more egg screening and then cheaper Polish eggs outcompete the German eggs in our supermarkets we don’t want that. A common market means that we can’t simply forbid Polish eggs, so there’s a need for a shared agricultural policy that somehow brings the different ideas about how eggs should be produced together.
If one country decides to increase subsidies for apples and then outcompetes other European countries for apples or creates pressures for them also to add apple subsidies to protect their apple growers that isn’t great either.
If you have a common market common agricultural policy does make some sense.
Isn’t the obvious solution to allow only early-screened eggs to be sold in Germany, no matter where they came from? And similar for other kinds of goods that can be made in unethical or polluting ways: require both domestic producers and importers to prove that the goods were produced ethically/cleanly/etc. And this doesn’t require a shared policy between many countries, each country can impose such rules on its own.
That violates the rules of a common market which is the core of what the EU is about. This is the logic why Dominic Cummings considered Brexit to be the obvious solution.
Recently, the Trump administration was arguing that some EU rules for things like car safety block US cars to be sold in Europe so as part of his tariff threads he pushed through rules so that now cars that EU rules used to consider to be unsafe to be sold. Trade agreements limits how countries can limit what’s sold in them and the common free market is a trade agreement that everything can be sold everywhere in the EU.
Jut stumbled upon a writeup about the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy which gives more details about the current state of affairs: https://elaine.mayoris.com/go/x5u4ooluse0aaauiok2lg063hjgfz7kqjvjwcsgwsoi2/2866
I don’t think that violates free trade. Trump may think so, but that’s on him.
Putting a tariff on foreign cars certainly violates free trade, because it discriminates between domestic and foreign sellers. But requiring e.g. catalytic converters on all cars sold in your country, domestic and foreign alike, is okay. Banning leaded gasoline in your country is likewise okay, as long as you don’t discriminate on the origin of that gasoline. Countries should be allowed to pass laws like that.
ETA: looking at actual history, it seems different European countries banned leaded gasoline at different times, and the EU was already well established by then. Which seems to confirm my point.
In practice, it’s all a matter of trade negotiations. Trade deals specify on what grounds countries can pass goods from being sold. Plenty of trade agreements then have clauses for Investor-State-Dispute-Settlement to enforce what was negotiated which reduces countries sovereignty to just do what they want.
Trump did get the EU to allow US goods to be sold that were previously blocked form being sold because of regulation like car safety regulation.
EU’s rules are quite complex. The general rule is in Article 34 of the TFEU:
Article 36 TFEU than says:
Then there are plenty of more specific EU directives ChatGPT lists Regulation 2019⁄515 and Directive 1999/74/EC as mattering to the egg question.
I get your argument. But the same one can be made about anything. French government subsidizing French cinema? Not fair, because it puts German cinema at a disadvantage. Better housing policies in Poland? Shouldn’t be allowed, because lower rents mean lower salaries, which means cheaper industrial goods, which, again, puts Germany at a disadvantage. And so on. But in a federal state, the members should compete on at least something. If they don’t, if they are forced to behave exactly the same in all regards, what’s the point of having a federal state in the first place? A centralized one would do.
I think when you look at it you will find that French films are not a major source of competition for German cinema. Even with French subsidies, German don’t focus on watching French films. If anything the are watching films from Hollywood.
Everyone wants better policies, the key question is what policies are actually better. If Poland for example allows housing to be build with less concern for parking spaces than Germany which results in cheaper housing, the cost of having less parking space is born by the Polish citizens that live near that housing that could be constructed with less parking spaces.
Having people be able to trade off availability of parking spaces vs. cheaper rent in different local jurisdiction makes a lot of sense as the relevant costs are born by the local population.
The same goes for playground construction. If Berlin wants to require people who build a house to construct playgrounds and Warsaw doesn’t and that leads to lower rent in Warsaw, that’s a matter of local preferences and it doesn’t make sense to decide on requirements for playground construction on the EU level.
As citizen of Berlin, I would like lower rents, less parking spaces and less playground construction requirements, but I think it’s reasonable to make that decision on the state level (Berlin is both city and a state within Germany).
That’s different than many aspects of farming policy, where it’s not about benefits that are accrued locally.
In the EU states and lower level institutions compete on plenty, that’s not a good argument to make if you want to criticize the status quo.