We, as humanity, really need to stop equating democracy with direct votes and referenda. There are reasons why some bodies are nominated indirectly and through convoluted procedures. In many countries these processes exist to prevent the rise of fascisms or totalitarianism in general.
The EU, in particular, is a community of relatively different states, where you can’t have just direct elections with proportional representation, otherwise the most populous countries will decide for everybody. This is why there is a zoo of directly elected bodies, bodies nominated by the Parliament, others expressing the will of countries’ governments, and complex voting procedures with qualified majorities and veto powers.
In practice the EU has struggled to make national governments ratify trade treaties because their devolved regions were worried about beef prices. It’s not an unstoppable dictatorial behemoth that decides against the will of the people, if 10 farmers in Wallonia can stop it. They still haven’t convinced Germany that an Italian baker can open a bakery in Bavaria without attending a local mandatory 5 year Meister training.
If a native speaker didn't pass a C2 exam, it's not because they don't understand the language well enough, it's because they are bad at reading/writing as a skill and might make e.g. spelling mistakes.
Any native speaker will still be far beyond C2 when it comes to intuitively understanding a language and using it. No native speaker will ever fail the oral part of a C2 exam, unless they have to talk about a topic they don't know, which would be a case of a lack of knowledge, not a lack of language proficiency.
> it's because they are bad at reading/writing as a skill and might make e.g. spelling mistakes.
Reading and writing are part of language proficiency. If someone struggles to understand complex written texts, then their command of the language isn't as strong as that of a proficient C1/C2 user, even if they are a native speaker.
> they have to talk about a topic they don't know.
When I took my C1 exam, I had to read and discuss a text about polymers used in aircraft wings. The definition of C1 describes someone who can understand complex texts and use the language in academic and professional contexts. Many native speakers are not even close (eg I know a number of people who were born and raised in Italy who don't understand all the moods and tenses, so I have to simplify my language when speaking with them, as I would with a foreigner).
What you have in mind is “sounding like a local” or “not having a foreign accent” or “knowing most of regional idiomatic expression”.
C1 is high school level indeed and C2 is academics. this has been studied on native speakers:
me> I'm looking for studies which examine citizens language proficiency in their native tongue in the European language reference framework i.e. b2 C1 C2
also here is the "self assessment" on the CEFR home page:
Self-assessment grid - Table 2 (CEFR 3.3) : Common Reference levels - Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) https://share.google/E6POb6UYC53cUkxXg
EU legislature is an actual corpus of laws. It’s imperfect, but it’s arguably better than having a guy that can block a model or threat companies because they crossed him.
The US has a guy who occasionally can screw things up for a few weeks, but who will be gone in a while.
You have it upside down: the innovation and the stuff is the valuable thing, the laws are there to help us organize ourselves a bit after the fact. They're always a secondary concern to the extent that the vast majority of civilization is working with one another, doing material things wherein the law usually is there as a backstop.
There are some ugly things here and there but by and large - 'cookie settings' has not materially improved people's lives - and not nearly as much as the innovations on the web themselves.
Doing is primacy, regulating is always secondary, with only a few exceptions.
The EU is in really really bad shape on industrial issues on a continental scale - 'too many regulations' is actually not a root cause (it's a big drag, but not root), but it's also not for the most part some kind of advantage.
You see the same thing play out with defence and other things.
Having to beg the US for help with Ukraine, for Patriot munitions, Starlink, advanced intel, for 5th Gen gear, mid range ballistic missiles - it's an existentially disempowering posture.
Human rights won't matter in the areas where the Russians have conquerd or destroyed. Again, here EU/Euro governance issues loom large.
'Do the thing' then as you go along, think about some guardrails or whatever, but the 'do the thing' is the hard part that deserves most of the focus.
Exactly. Europe makes the process and bureaucracy the end itself rather than understanding that they are one part of a means to an end, of actual innovation. People don't call Europe a mausoleum for nothing.
Exactly, it’s quite funny that everyone equate US and US legal system to Trump. The founding fathers created a constitution that can whit-stand and survive people like Trump and still the Republic would thrive. Trump would be gone in few years but US would still be there like it has been for the past 250 years for the people by the people.
On the other hand EU started as an economic union and has rotten into a behemoth that tries to control every aspect of Europeans. It was not created by the people for the people, rather a bunch of bureaucrats to exert their power and establish authority. At the start EU has done a lot of good things as an economic union, but at its current form, it does more harm for the growth of Europe rather than helping
The founding fathers created a document that was already struggling with modern realities prior to Trump. 250 years is not a particularly impressive amount of time for a country to not fall apart.
A country that is a thousand years old is obviously going to have to change its constitution.
European countries have gone from massive societal changes to massive societal changes (for example from monarchies to republics).
The USA is a new country, and its constitutional rigidity causes a lot of social and political problems that most likely will lead to big changes in the future.
Yes, some countries in Europe remained monarchies for 1500 years or longer. They didn't really have a constituion back then because they were not republics.
They really did have constitutions back then. Substantial constitutions. With many many many documents over hundreds of years.
A constitution, or supreme law, is the aggregate of fundamental principles or established precedents that constitute the legal basis of a polity, organization or other type of entity, and commonly determines how that entity is to be governed. [0]
Their entire history of implementing and applying principles of Roman Law and other creeds was their ever growing constitution.
> The USA is a new country, and its constitutional rigidity
and general loudness on the matter of "what is a constitution and why ours is the first and the greatest" has caused much confusion given they have such a short and barely evolved one.
>250 years is not a particularly impressive amount of time for a country to not fall apart.
250 years is older than almost every country in Europe (by that I mean current borders and form of government, not the ancient historical ones).
Most were monarchies or various forms of dictatorship till only a few decades ago and finally settled on their current borders only after WW2 or the fall of the USSR or the Yugoslav wars.
For example Spain had its first democratic elections in 1977 and then the UK was dealing with "The Troubles" sectarian conflict in northern Ireland. Europe always was a powder keg around forms of governance, culture, religion and sects. All that is not something that goes away overnight just because EU membership happened.
In contrast, 250 years of continuous governance and conflict free stability is super impressive by that standard.
Care to elaborate on concrete examples on where it struggled? 250 years is quite impressive even if you don't believe it or not because only a handful of countries in the whole world has an older constitution.
As a humorous illustration of the point (of the presence of what is now low relevance content in the constitution.)
Let's try to figure out where the 3rd amendment might actually have significance in the future. Maybe in space habitats? Or could forced installation of government AI in systems be considered a 3rd amendment violation?
"250 years is not a particularly impressive amount of time for a country to not fall apart." ?
Sure it is, it's very impressive.
What other nations have lasted that long?
Chinese Dynasties usually collapse within that range.
Aside from the UK, maybe Sweden (?) which have been fairly contiguous, most nations are more short-lived. France is on it's 5th Republic in the same time-frame.
America is way more than the gong show in charge right now.
Most of the 'tests' of it's integrity are due to really just that one guy.
But you're right to point out inherent problems with the Union.
Because EU is not a 'right wing flag waving' entity, we don't really think about it in terms of 'nationalism', but the EU has among the loudest, most clearly visceral and virulent nationalist supporters.
You can say anything you want about national governments but critique of the EU is met with a lot of rancour.
I've worked for EU bodies, it's full of well meaning people and it has tremendous value as an economic unions, but as a political entity it has existential flaws, too many to name, and it is absolutely an elitist project and it absolutely has a 'regulate first' attitude, which is quite upside down.
'Doing The Stuff' matters 10x more than 'Talking About The Stuff'.
> The US has a guy who occasionally can screw things up for a few weeks, but who will be gone in a while.
We have all just realized that the American Constitution is the jurisprudential analogue of the Albanian virus (https://github.com/AriBjornOlafsson/Albanian-Virus). I wouldn’t take it for granted that what has happened up to now, before this new twist, will continue to happen in a world where being Trump’s friend is enough to change the NASDAQ listing rules.
Some effects of Brexit began right after the referendum (eg a business investment flattened since 2016).
2019–2020 are the worst years to start a comparison, because the UK uses a different accounting method to measure the government's contribution to GDP. So, COVID looks much worse in the UK and the recovery looks much better.
Business investment did not flatten after the referendum. Nothing happened after the referendum and the economy continued to grow, with unemployment falling to record lows.
Compare vs the prediction by guys like Portes, the author of the essay: "In the short term, we expect that a vote to leave would result in a significant economic downturn, with unemployment rising by up to 1.7 per cent"
People like the author have no credibility. When they say things like, "Most serious estimates now suggest that UK GDP is several percentage points below where it would otherwise have been" they don't address the fact that "serious" people previously made many failed predictions. Like always in academia, continuous failure is not considered disqualifying for the job.
