[oblio]

> It seems to be a process designed and intended to cause conflict and euroscepticism.

Just like the EU itself, it's a compromise. Every member state wants to have its cake (economic benefits) and eat it, too (full sovereignty).

That can't work because a deep economic integration is... surprise, surprise, a deep political and social integration.

The EU Parliament is probably the only parliament in the world that I know of, that can't introduce new laws.

[pyuser583]

The US is very economically integrated with China.

But it is not socially or politically integrated with China.

Same could be said with US/Mexico, China/Taiwan, etc.

The European Project sees social and political integration as ends themselves.

It uses economic advantages as a way to convince voters to adopt policies that aren’t economically required.

[oblio]

> The US is very economically integrated with China.

No, it's not. It is slightly economically integrated, and mostly in terms of physical goods.

Are American IP laws applicable in China and the other way around? For example when licensing a Disney movie in the US, can I distribute it in China?

Do you get warranty in China for any good sold in the US and vice versa?

Do both countries use, by law, the same systems of measurements?

That's what deep economic integration looks like.

[pyuser583]

None of these three things require open borders, which the EU insists on.

In fact, the Canada has all three in common with the EU.

But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration.

[oblio]

My list was not an exhaustive list :-)))

> But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration.

Yes, they do. You don't know what the EU project is about. You don't know its history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union

> After the war on 19 September 1946 Chruchill went further as a civilian, after leaving office, at the University of Zürich, calling for a United States of Europe

> To ensure Germany could never threaten the peace again, its heavy industry was partly dismantled (See: Allied plans for German industry after World War II) and its main coal-producing regions were either awarded to neighbouring countries (Silesia), managed as separate directly by an occupying power (Saarland) or put under international control (Ruhr area)

> The founding fathers of the European Union understood that coal and steel were the two industries essential for waging war, and believed that by tying their national industries together, a future war between their nations became much less likely.

The EU was always a political union.

[JadeNB]

> > But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration.

> Yes, they do. You don't know what the EU project is about. You don't know its history:

…

> The EU was always a political union.

I'm confused, because it seems that you and your parent are saying the same thing. Did you misread them as saying the EU doesn't want political integration?

[oblio]

If you read their tone, EU political integration is a negative aspect.

I'm saying that a) it was always the plan and b) it's good.

[pyuser583]

I understand the history of European integration.

Contrary to the expectation of everyone, the EU is mostly an economic body. It has other missions, but those are nowhere as popular or as effective as economic integration.

Cultural integration? EU cultural policy is focused on preserving local cultures, not promoting a Pan-European culture. They want a pan-European culture. They just don’t know how to make it.

Are there EU-wide sports leagues? EU wide award shows? Irish authors brag when they get shortlisted for the Booker Prize, not when they get some obscure EU award.

Political integration? What’s the turnout on EU elections?

Military integration? I read something about some experimental “European” unit somewhere. But there are probably more Germans in the French Foreign Legion than there are soldiers in the “EU” military.

The EU is a failure at everything except economics.

They want to do more. They really do. It’s “in the cards.”

And my original complaint was that the EU justifies non-economic measures using economic logic. Why? Because despite the despite the cultural, military, and political goals, the EU is mostly an economic entity,

But an economic union based upon mandatory liberal economics is certainly not what anyone had in mind before 1989.

Edit: A good example is freedom of movement. Originally, this was a cultural policy decided to make “Europeans.”

It’s failed. When Poles move to Ireland, they and their descendants become Irish, not European.

So the EU justifies it by talking about an “integrated labor market.”

[shapefrog]

> require open borders, which the EU insists on

The EU does not insist upon "open borders".

The single market (EU) seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people, known collectively as the "four freedoms".

Article 45 covers the relevant things that the EU "insists" on including the restrictions the EU "insists" on - https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=457

Perhaps you mean the external border of the EU - Article 3 covers that one, and the EU does have requirements that it insists on for this border. It obliges Member States to carry out systematic checks against relevant databases on all persons, including those with the right to free movement under EU law when they cross the external borders. i.e. they actually insist that it is a closed border.

[denton-scratch]

> But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration.

I think the open borders thing is that you can't have an open internal market, unless workers can move freely across borders, as well as goods and capital. That is, it really is about economic integration.

[busterarm]

The US has entire classes of financial instruments that are sold exclusively to the Chinese government.

You can't solely be linked by physical goods and it can't be one-sided. That results in trade imbalance which results in war. See the Opium Wars, for example.

[Retric]

The China/US link is frequently overestimated it’s only 14% of total US trade. China isn’t even the US’s largest trading partner, it’s 3rd after Canada and Mexico, with a small lead over the EU. Really though the top 4 spots are all fairly close to each other.

[piuantiderp]

I know that at least for Mexico, a lot of the trade with China has final destination the US.

[csomar]

Same thing for all countries. This also applies to China. Stuff they produce can’t be made 100% in China. Though I’m sure China is playing games to get around import restrictions.

[thatguy0900]

Look into the influence the Chinese gov has on Hollywood and video games. The fact that the Chinese market is a economically profitable one makes all of our media kowtow to them, I would call that a social integration.

[IncRnd]

> That can't work because a deep economic integration is... surprise, surprise, a deep political and social integration.

That's not really the case. Many countries have economic ties with other coutries but no political or social ties. For example, the US imports most of the Uranium that it uses, but that doesn't mean political and social integration between the US and Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Russia or Namibia. [1]

[1] 47 million lbs imported in 2021. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uraniu...

[nirimda]

Introduce new laws (into operation) or introduce new bills (into the agenda)? I thought it could introduce new laws that were directly applicable so long as they were related to certain matters. But the bills for the laws have to be introduced by the commission. The whole thing is sufficiently confusing that I could be wrong.

Anyway, I'm not entirely sure that it is a standard EU compromise. The governments wrote the rules in the context of what must surely be constant disagreements between the parliaments and the governments (at least if the politics of my own non-EU country is anything to go by). I can't believe they didn't know what they were doing - taking power from their own colleagues in parliaments.

[oblio]

> I can't believe they didn't know what they were doing - taking power from their own colleagues in parliaments.

That's the compromise :-) I forget when exactly it happened, but I'm quite sure it coincided with an increase in the scope of EU responsibilities.