Europeans Surveyed About Their Vision For Europe - More Integrated? Bigger Eurozone? - TLDR News
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 08. 2020
- With COVID, economic issues and Brexit all hitting the EU at once, it seems like a bit of an inflexion point for the Union. Should the EU nations pull closer and integrate further or is it time for individual states to reclaim their power? In this video, we discuss what Europeans think by examining a recent poll of EU citizens.
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
TLDR Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-spring
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
////////////////////////////////////////
1 - yougov.co.uk/topics/internati...
I get the feeling Finland doesn't like others that much
I wouldn't read it that way, I just think their culture values self reliance more so they have more expectation for others to take care of themselves like they would do themselves.
they do like Estonia(where i live :D)
It´s because of finland doesn´t haw natural disasters and global warming doesn´t affect that much. So we almost always lose financially.
I am from Finland and the only EU country that I don't like is Finland👌
Finland willing to help only their close neighbors and major partners.
I like how Sweden, a non-NATO member, thinks Europe defence should integrate with NATO expansion.
As a Swede I have no f**ing idea how my fellow Swedes think NATO is more advisable when we aren't even part of it. EU defense all the way, the US simply can't be relied on, same with Turkey.
It's strange. Support for NATO here is weak to say the least. Broadly, the right are in favour of it but most don't seems to care about it and the left are against it. I certainly don't want to be in a military alliance with Turkey and the US, they are the sort of countries Europe potentially needs defending against. We may as well join CSTO if we're so willing to accept excessive militarism, constant meddling in the Middle East and escalating geopolitical tension.
@@markhaus Isn't it obvious? The more presence NATO has in Europe, the less Sweden has to take actual part in EU's defense, and it can just stay neutral forever, NOT putting its money where it's mouth is. It's not that different with EU NATO member countries either.
@@zackgeorgly5099 More importantly Sweden isn't really a neutral country anyways, it's been a NATO partner for a long time now. Not a member, granted. But certainly aligned in the purpose of defending democracy in the world.
@@Megalomaniakaal Yes, but only doing it when and how it sees fit. Not being a member means it can always decline from NATO conflicts claiming its neutrality. Because it's not likely that NATO would ever allow it being invaded, unlike Finland.
How come only a 14 countries were part of the survey, and also, how come British citizens were part of it? Some of the choices made about this survey are somewhat questionable.
I think these countries have the most people m/wealth concentrated in the union. And UK is a good benchmark for what they envisioned for the EU after leaving
It's a good metric, for example Portugal and Belgium are usually not very important, Portugal is more aligned with the Southern states and Belgium is among the most supportive member for a near full integration, so neither are very important to verify.
Surveys cost money. Perhaps they did the best they could with the budget at their disposal.
Not sure about most people m/wealth concentrated in the union - Romania is in, and Austria is not, for example. Now that I think about it, maybe it is a representative sample of countries. But if the survey has been done online, which is most likely given COVID, I just don't really see why they didn't include all countries - sure, we can guess what would be the most likely results in the other countries, but it would be even better, if there is real survey data from them.
Because the UK is a European country of note. Europe and being European is a completely separate thing from being in the European Union. Ones is a location the other an organisation. The EU just happened to take the name of its origin, Kinda like how some businesses and football clubs etc do.
from a scientific perspective that is a terrible poll.
Yeah that’s what I thought as well. I don‘t believe this thing has great external or internal validity...
I think these are just the conclusions of the survey, a full statistical breakdown would not fit into 10mi. I do have to read the full survey to be shure though.
Daniel von Strangle I mean if they were truly randomly selected, those numbers are not that bad..
Nah James from your alt right prospective its a terrible poll because it doesn't give you the answer you want
@@Honking_Goose Finland is an EU member state since 1995 with intention to stay - other then the UK
The EU could definitely do all three, like they already do. But if I had to pick one, it would be a protective Europe where Europe doesn't have to rely on any foreign nation and European culture is somewhat preserved.
The US has become very selfish recently in terms of foreign trade. Either you trade with them and follow their 'requests', or you face sanctions. No reliance on the US means sanctions will have no effect on the EU.
I agree. It’s unrealistic for any country (much less rich European ones) to be over protective and closed off to the world and at the same time keep most of their social and economic benefits. Business work with those in others countries because it benefits them.
Wouldn't it be selfish to expect your defence to be paid for by another nation for over 70 years? The US has spent billions protecting Europe militarily. European nations have repeatedly refused to spend the NATO baseline on defence.
@@WhatIsBacon That's understandable but military alliances and foreign trade policies should be and usually are considered to be separate things.
And to be fair with the NATO thing, the UK and France (the only two militaries that 'matter' in Europe) have been somewhat good at hitting that 2% threshold. Europe is no longer that threatened by a Russian attack, China is the new threat (which is pretty far from Europe). The US also doesn't care that much about Europe not hitting the threshold. It benefits the US greatly (they just don't like to say it coz they sneaky). The US wants military bases everywhere so no matter where a conflict occurs, the US has the upper hand.
@Purtilo Pursinaama There is. It's just that a lot of it has become mainstream, but it is still European. You can even see some cultural differences between Europe and the US (which in itself is a variation of British culture), especially at Christmas time.
Look at what happened in Germany after so many refugees arrived. Some of the refugee's ignored European culture and used their own, which resulted in women abuse (and to some extent, still does).
@Purtilo Pursinaama You are right, each part and each country in Europe does have its own culture, some more distinct than others, but they also all share a common European culture. It's kinda how the EU was able to be formed in the first place.
It's a bad poll when it forces people to choose one of non-exclusive non-comprehensive overlapping options. 😕👎
quite a few questions had an idk option
@@jezusbloodie not good enough. "IDK" is not a synonym of "other" nor is it a synonym of "I agree with two of the options but you present them as if they are mutually exclusive".
Not necessarily. Forcing someone to choose one or the other shows what they'd prioritise, a.k.a what's more important to them. It's a technique used in surveys a lot. A "both" option would be useless data. And it's mostly used to draw comparisons between countries, to see the differences and similarities in what people value more.
@@bassetts1899 there's no need to prioritize two things that can be done at the same time. And the question doesn't say anything about priorities or importance.
@@bassetts1899 i'd make people rank the options, which wouls give a better picture. Ive seen this dome in a lot of surveys.
My Vision for Europe? Undisputed Global Leadership, with me at the helm.
Long live the emperor!
That just sounds like world domination with extra steps
We call it the German way ;D
@@Leicht_Sinn or the French one, or the Roman one, or the Habsburg one... Did I forget about an nowadays EU centric Empire?
@@popelgruner595 the swiss one ;D
“Special thanks to our Patre- espec- and finally, a special thanks to our Patreon backers”
Ja, ^^ bloopers. It's a great idea to leave it in :D
Then consider backeri- Then consider backing us
Cut the man some slack. He is the most hard working youtuber ever.
This seems like a half-arsed poll. Out of 27 members states, only 13 were polled, but the UK (a non-member) is included.
Personally, while I like the videos, I stay for the comments. No better place to discuss the EU than on channels like this one.
By including a former member in its survey, the EU can learn what makes it appealing and more importantly, what makes it undesirable.
I want a United States of Europe. A protective Europe shielding European culture, our economy and civilisation from outside influence and domination. Only after consolidating internally, can we begin to aim for a "global Europe". I'm for European solidarity, helping Europe first and other places second to the extent we are able, definitely a more active EU. I'm in favour of paying more in taxes to the EU as a move towards a fiscal union and as a way of giving back, all in for integration and union, we should adopt the Euro and create a European Army (NATO is too dependent on America's mood swings).
Is there such as thing as "Eurpean culture", considering the (my perceived) closeness of strangers in southern countries and the union having some of the most non-religious and most Christian countries in the world?
Perhaps someday, but not for the first 20 years. And remember: The US we see today is not the ``normal`` US, because of Trump. As soon as he disappears we will get a better relation to the US.
I don't want bigger goverment. Bigger more far away rulers tend to forget what the citizens want...
How much is Guy Verhofstadt paying you to chill for EU?
Funny how just a few years ago, they said "The EU army is a fantasy"
@@HasekuraIsuna I think there might be. I have a Dutch father, German mother and was born and raised in Belgium (where I currently reside too). I don't have a strong affinity to any EU country and consider myself an EU citizen above my Dutch nationality. I have friends all over the EU and we have exchanged our thoughts and culture. I think the EU culture is like the American culture, a melting pot.
I would love to have a United States of Europe, with the option to include more and more countries in the future.
I almost died laughing when I noticed that the Spanish would give financial assistance to literally everyone but the UK.
EDIT: And so I caused the CZcams equivalent of "several people are typing".
Well UK are not the most nicest people 😂
@Darren Sparrow just look at Brexiteers...
well, the UK doesn´t need us or any other EU ncountry right? haha
Good proportion of Spain's economy is funded by British pensioners
@@ianclark1972 Good proportion of British pensionist occupy the spanish coasts during the summer. It's just a good inversion for themselves, don´t worry. Besides, UK wonñt bve paying EU funding for much longer
POLAND & HUNGARY are more willing to help other countries with refugee crisis than FRANCE?
Am I supposed to take this survey seriously or is it some kind of out-of-season April fool's joke?
I don't know about Hungary but Poland is very willing to take refugees but from our culturual background. Meaning Ukrainians and Belarusians without a doubt.
Yeah, I think most countries would be willing to take in actual refugees, as in not fake refugees lmao
Maczeta Maczeta
Unfortunately there’s no choice. Real refugees are usually very great full to get to a safe place and are willing to adept to their (temporary) new country’s habits and rules.
Your answer seems genuine but also a bit xenophobic to me.
@@Conservator. "genuine but also a bit xenophobic to me."
That's because you don't know me, so you can only take guesses. I never told, that is my personal opinion, that's why I was upvoted like crazy from all those "anti-black, anti-islamic" fellas ;) That was a fact about my country. My government as long as most of Poles are very willing to take refugees from Eastern Europe and eventually Asia. In that light I'm not surprised it's even more willing than France. On the other hand they do have issues with Arabic and to some extent Black refugees. I personally have none. If someone needs a help, those who can should provide.
@Influence08
Poland took in 2 MILLION Ukrainian refugees.
With further integration, and as europeans begin to see the EU as 'their' government, the EU needs to get rid of the European Council's cumbersome one-country veto system. A 2/3's majority is a more realistic voting practice.
it already votes like that with the exception of taxation and so legal matters, the EU is not my goverment i dont even know most of their names.
@@pedrorequio5515 I do not even know most of the names of the people in my city council... So what?
@@pedrorequio5515 well it partly is due to the fact contries send their memebrs to the EU for the palament
@@gf4913 neither do I but their power is insignificant and the ones i know are massively corrupt but have very little power in important matters and i know most of key figures in my goverment.
@@Leicht_Sinn Pencil pusher parliment, they have no real power. The council is what matters and fairly so, i dont care for people to be represented directly just countries(i live in the small country so the council vote matters more than EU parliment representation which only helps big countries).
1:50 The fact, that they asked people in UK but not in every other EU country triggers me beyond belive.
Ever closer union now! We are and will always be stronger TOGETHER. The world is a dangerous place.
yes all other countries like china, russia, US, Turkey just want to see the eu disband in a weak corpse especially russia. I can already see Putin's smile omfg
@@god6384 I don't think has too much problems with EU, his main issue in Europe is NATO. EU is an important economic partner and there could be even a larger potential for stronger economic ties if it wasn't for NATO. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Putin had an eurocentric vision for the future, were stronger ties in Europe would lead to a renaissance of Europe as a superpower. But then he saw that not only that NATO, an alliance built against them, continued to exist, but it expanded in East, closer to it's borders, and that changed the dynamic... NATO is the biggest issue both Russia and Europe has... Is easy to see what threats we Europeans face and fight against, and realize that all of them are America's fault... The war on terror is the result of America's wars for oil, the mass migration is the result of those wars destroying all those Muslims countries - look forward to the future, now that US is retiring from Afghanistan, prepare for a mass exodus of Afgans fleeing from Taliban's into Europe. Climate change - US polluted in the past 50 years more than all the countries in the world combined... they act as leaders in the fight against climate change, but they keep refusing to have any regulations, they are at the bottom when it comes to green energy, policies, recycling, and environmental unfriendly capitalism... the rivalry with Russia is also an US thing too, and the current Cold War with Russia started after US decided to break it's treaties and build rocket shields in Romania and Poland, a decade ago... US, is the worst ally we could have asked for... is like that shitty friend that tells you he wants the best for you and has your back, but ends up dragging you into problems and shitty situations all the time. EU needs to build it's own army and take its matter into its own hands... Our interests... the EU interests and US interests do not align... With the raise of China, EU has an extraordinary opportunity to reset it's relationships with Russia, and finally make peace, because Russia is just as worried about China as the rest of us, because China is starting to raise territorial claims, and the situation in Siberia is quite dangerous. If we would detensionate the border in Europe, Russia could afford to focus on it's border with China and the Chinese treath, and EU could solve an existential crisis, which could evolve in the best case scenario into a large scale European war, and in the worst case scenario, into a nuclear war... and for what? What do we gain from being in this situation with Russia? Is not in our interests... EU wants access to Russia resources, and there is a lot to gain from a substantial trade deal, with such a large neighbor.
5:18
Help in case of debt crisis
Germany is like:
"Dude, we've had enough of this sh*t!"
Spain, Italy and Greece:
"If we would have the cash, we would totally help you out. We promise!"
When you see Greece be very supportive for EU 🇬🇷
I love Greece!
Now it remains to be seen if the EU is also supportive of Greece
I think it's rather easy to be supportive of a system you're a net beneficiary of. Now, try argue with people who wants a market EU (I.E. an EU that focus on market interest and little to nothing else) when you live in a net contributive country.
@@RannonSi To be fair my country has been in a bit of a shitshow these past couple of year and i have seen with my very eyes the benefits of being part of the union, like the funding in different infastructure and cultural projects and such. I know that we have taken from the union more than we have given. That being said, if my country was to ever finaly recover i would 100% be in support of slowing down the progress in order to give back to the union and the less developed nations in it. After all, thats the whole point of the union in the first place. We help each other so in the end everyone is better off.
@@alexxans1154 Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. What I meant is that it can be a bit hard to argue with people who're either against EU or want EU to go back to some entirely economical Union (which I honestly don't think it ever was) when one of their arguments is that we give more than we receive (monetarily) and the pros are a bit harder to show (at least partially because my government, to my understanding at least, makes it a bit harder to request EU grants (at least in some sectors).
Great Video! @6:02 you misspelled variety, not sure if you can do much about it but I thought to point it out.
"Last couple of months, years and decades Europe had a difficult time". Still beats WW1, WW2 and Dark Ages in my opinion😄 We've been living in the most prosperous and troublesome period in history in Europe, dont forget that!
Yeah. The Euroskeptic crowd doesn't seem to appreciate that the EU has basically brought an end to literally thousands of years of constant war, and even established peaceful and friendly relationships with a bunch of post-Soviet states.
@@neolexiousneolexian6079 exactly my thought
@@neolexiousneolexian6079 The vast majority of people know nothing about history, and only care for the here and now and their personal experience and feelings.
These results are not at all what I expected, weird, and sometimes contradictory.
For instance: people want a protectionist EU and oppose a "global Europe", however they prefer sending aid to Africa to aiding other EU nations. I'm sorry, what??!? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
I'm also surprised at how much support the EU has in Greece, and how little it has in Finland. And that Southern and Eastern Europeans appear to be more in favour of helping refugees than northern and western Europe.
All of this is bizarre...
I feel like a lot of that just has to do with the questions being bad. As a pollster you should always make sure people won't accidentally give contradictory answers to you.
What is contradictory about it? Nothing contradictory into wanting to preserve high standards in agriculture and manufactures but also wanting to trade globally. Not contradictory in wanting to act as a responsible world citizen in assisting emerging economies to prosperity. The more prosperous the Third World becomes the fewer people will become illegal migrants. You are seeing this in a Trumpian winner takes all mentality.
Sending aid to those still suffering effects from colonialism vs sending aid to your rich neighbour who may be responsible for their own issues anyway are different things.
There's a natural tendency for people to have different opinions on problems depending on how much they're feeling the effects. The refugee issue is a good example: people in th South are the entry point for refugees, so it is a pressing issue for them. People in the north are less exposed to this issue (you know... picking up sinking dingies filled with people from the middle of the sea) so they see it as less of their problem, thus less important.
I want my country to be the next to come out of the German-led Thief Union.
Wanting further integration and at the same time wanting to not give aid in certain situations is an illusion. Same thing as wanting to receive systematic aid and not be willing to give up some sort of autonomy. When you're all tied together, what happens with one will naturally affect all the others. If you want the benefits of integration, you must be willing to make the compromises.
I Think we (the eu) need go for lot more speed trains and a lot cheaper tickets. So we can make a cheap city trip to Others capital city's and stopping use airplanes for it.
you need infrastructure for that and that is expensive and slow to build
I so 100% agree on this, we don't need more Electric cars we need people to use public traffic more and there are a lot of things we can do to make that more accessible. Not just electric trains but also get rid of the old idea of one locomotive and many carriages and just do a carriage per trip as is required. There are so many reasons to do cargo shipping per train and not with lorries over the highway. It's worth dumping a lot of money in in my opinion.
hear hear! Or just begin with offering subsidies on interrailtrains and pay these subsidies with a taks on kerosine fuel (which I don't think there currently is).
The problem with infrastructure is the local prople like to block it
@@Leicht_Sinn But with the ridiculous amount of space we are using for highways and still making new highways how does making more railway tracks not make more sense? Although I do agree maybe we should first focus on using the railway more I just hate seeing so many people believe they need a car when really they do not need a car they just need to go from where they are to where they want to be and you can do that just fine with a bus and a train.
Incredible video! I would love to see more videos like this one, discussing data and POVs of different EU countries on various issues! As soon as I get more income, I would love to become a patreon supporter, you guys do high quality work, with interesting and important (and espetually compilated) topics.
One of the best videos you've done! I would like to see a video on the military front on the EU and the two speed idea being explained...
Definitely more EU integration videos. Too bad I didn’t have them last year when I had to write a paper on the effects of Brexit on EU integration.
14/27 countries took the survey? Why not all? Seems like that survey had results before they got started.
With that said, the distinction is clear the "main" countries of the EU want it to be global while the other countries want it to protect our interests more which makes sense, countries like France and Germany are less volitile than southern counties like Spain, Greece and Italy which depend on tourism and have a neglected industry and or have a refugee problem (the case with Greece).
The EU's biggest problem is thinking that all the members states want the same thing and have the same things which is not the case and yet we keep treating it that way. My concern as a citizen of a small country is that the EU is so large that it will do things that affect my every day without hearing my voice
Italy has a neglected industry? Italy is the second industrial exporter of the EU Countries.
@@a.b.6233 Italy is the 4th.
I can try to answer your concern, it is true that as part of a union your personal political power is diluted in a larger population when it comes to vote for the parliament for example. But for this there are compensation mechanisms for example the european council where many EU decisions (too many in my opinion) can be vetoed by a single nation no matter how big it is.
Consider also that being part of a large union is very useful to sustain your interests, for example if the EU decides to sanction a production method that is harmful for the environment or the workers' rights it can shut its market and be effective because of its size, a single european nation alone is too small to do so.
Therefore you lose some footprint in setting the agenda, but gain a lot more effectiveness in carrying it on.
Immagine if your country were outside the EU how much influence on the rest of the world would have it? And ofcourse what happens in the rest of the world would continue to influence your nation.
Maybe I'm a bit dump but I don't get the contraposition between a protective and global EU made in the video, if I think back to my simple example by imposing a global standard the EU protects the rights of its workers, so at least in this case it does the two things sinergicaly.
@@joaquinandreu8530 You are correct, my mistake. Italy is the 4th exporter, 3rd economy and 2nd manufacturer in the EU. In 2018 it had a €98bn import/export surplus therefore I don't know how somebody can define its industry as "neglected". This is the point I was trying to make. Thank you for correcting me.
i mean the EUs biggest problem at them moment is the assumption that all states within it have equal power, where as if you actually look at it a majority of the power is consolidated in Germany, due to the population, and it controlling the European banks. then next is france due to its population. and veto power, after that is was the uk. this means that germany and france control and steer how the eu should when it should be a matter of all of the member states controlling how the eu should go.
A special and final and special thanks for the video!
Special and final AND special?!? Aren't we lucky!
@@bassetts1899
Ein Brett vor dem Kopf ? :)
The greek debt crisis demonstrated that there is no solidarity in Europe, Brexit demonstrated that there is no unity among europeans and the COVID deadlock demonstrated that european countries have vastly different interests. Every time Europe is hit by a crisis massive holes in its structure are being exposed. The way I see it is that there are only two options going forward: either greater unity with the eventual creation of a centralised democratic federal government or eventual dissolution.
I don't know what you expect. Of course every country in the EU has different interests. It's a union of countries not states, it's an alliance not a country. Those interests don't work well when a crisis hits but that is to be expected. People will only start to have the same interests if their freedom, wealth, jobs, living conditions, and other standards are the same. Which will not happen until rules are set in place to enforce those, which will probably not happen and if so not soon, again because people have different interests.
@@ruud9761 Well that would be fine if not for the fact the the EU has immense powers over countries' laws and policies. You can't have an "alliance" that acts as a federal government whenever it wants to enforcce something and returns to being an outsider whenever an issue arises somewhere within Europe.
@@Gazzyl161 Those laws and policies are made in the interests of most people, if it wasn't they would not have passed. The problem is that a crisis needs a quick response, but coming to an agreement on all those different interests takes time. So yes, the EU definitely needs work to increase response time when a crisis occurs. But outside a crisis the EU can take their time to come to agreements with the interests of the masses in mind. So even if the EU does not act well with a crisis it would still be worth it in my opinion. I also don't think the EU is an old organization and should be perfect by now, or act as a federal government, but I know some do feel this way. And an alliance is not a buddy that helps you for free, there will be rules and agreements that need to be made and uphold which costs time. I wish they made those before a crisis would happen though.
Euh What?
"Greek debt crisis showed there's no solidarity in EU" what now?? You do know Greece was bailed out through European money? The country was saved from total bankrupcy by the EU. And they did it through very cheap loans. What else do you expect? Other countries just giving Greece the money it needed when their crisis was almost completely self inflicted? I think EU countries showed immense solidarity in the Greek crisis.
"Brexit demonstrated there's no unity". Again what?? One country that already was opting out on a ton of stuff and always blocked further EU integration chose to leave. And they chose to leave after a campaign shown to be full of lies, and still they only won by a margin of 2%. Any other referendum anywhere else would require at least 60% or even a 2/3 majority. On top of that the 52% who chose leave all voted for something else. If you divide it up equally maybe 17% voted for a total no deal Brexit, 17% voted for leaving but with a deal, and 17% voted for leaving but remaining part of the single market. But all 48% who voted remain all voted for the same thing, remaining part of the EU. So when you look at it that way remain won by a landslide. The brexit referendum was really badly organised, and brexit should never have happened. But even then, since Brexit, many national elections in the EU have shown that parties in other countries advocating for leaving the EU have either gained no ground at all or even lost votes. So if anything brexit has strengthened the support for the EU on the continent. If anything there's more unity than ever in the EU.
And lastly. "The covid deadlock has demonstrated that EU countries have vastly different interests". A last what now?? You do know they eventually agreed on a massive support package? Do you understand how the EU works and reaches decisions? The EU reaches decisions by representatives of all the countries first stating their wishes, and then many rounds of talks to reach a compromise. While this is happening many will state they wont compromise on certain things, many will try to stand firm for a while, all to better their negotiating position. But in the end a compromise is always reached and everyone is happy (or no-one is happy depending on how you look at it). That's how democracy by consensus works. In every crisis, there's hard ball negotiations, but always some sort of consensus is reached. And the covid negotiations were no different.
Seriously where do you get these delusions? Every singly thing you claimed is demonstrably false and not even hard to disprove...
Only thing I agree on is your conclusion. Going forward now, the EU has only two paths: dissolution or further integration.
Agreed, we need a federal government to keep us together. Also building a European identity would be helpful. The US is also a federation of different states with the only common being the language, but it works because they share and American identity. That is exactly what we need in Europe. We may be different, but not that much. But we really need a common identity, something we can all rally behind.
It would have been interesting to see the people in the survey being asked what countries do you think should join the eu
damn, Finland has no chill.
yeah they're really giving everyone the cold shoulder
Why is the UK included when it is not even a memeber of the EU?
It is still part of Europe and does a lot of trade with the EU (though the trade thing might change in the near future)
1. it was part of the EU. 2. It will likely rejoin at some point in the future. 3. It is still in europe.
@Ruben Niemendal pretty sure that he's aware of that...
Make that video on two-speeds EU, please. :D
10:52 lol
I would love to see in my life more integrated Europe.
I hope that too 🇮🇹🇪🇺
@@elia_connard405 the Mediterranean countries have to fix their economies or atleast reform to indicate a willingness to do so. The fact that Spain, Italy, Greece all voted pro help with relation to debt and job crisis is really telling.
A future where Europe can be considerd a single united entity would be amazing in my lifetime.
Where we have a single market, social security, single public transport, a direct vote for european president, a single united army, a single elektricity and gas market, and a singular mandatory 2nd united language of English or French or German.
Most country's will hold their personal identity and customs. But Europe as a whole would be able to respond to global crisis, without the decision having to be unanimous.
And we would sit at the table as 1 of the global superpower, like the USA and people's republic of China.
I have a czech passport but i have always felt just european or western in general. Partly perhaps because my family is from many places (hamburg, upper austria etc). Czech republic has a population of 10 million which is barely comparable to the population of a SINGLE chinese city!
Neal Vandenberghe exactly. There is no reason for spanish people for example to act less spanish, in the same way that ALL other large countries have their regional differences. EU being one simply means politically and economically. EU is not asking as to all be the same, if anything , the EU celebrates diversity. it’s its motto
Interesting video .... not sure why you had so much trouble with the outro, you must have done it a million times by now. :-)
In my opinion: further integration is needed, separate EU army from NATO, respect the euro. I only see EUs survival if we become a united diplomatic and economic superpower... P.S. TLDR we can de your surveys if you could make them :)
Joining the Euro means you lose the lever of devaluing and revaluing your currency for exports and imports. It's a vital tool for some countries and giving it up seems to give little to no benefits. As for EU's survival, I really don't see why the EU would collapse in any sense. It's like saying capitalism is going to collapse, you need to provide a reason as to why since as of right now it seems to be a really stable entity!
@@uku5840 The EU may not outright collapse, but countries like Italy, UK and especially greece are loosing faith in it, who might eventually leave it. Greece has currently plans on doing so given the EUs constant betrayals of greece.
The economy of the EU is also not doing so well and they are unable to figure out how the corona bonds at the moment.
@@terron7840 "UK will leave by the end of this year." "EU is unable to figure out Eurobonds"
Upon reading some of your comments I have come to the conclusion that you are an accidental time traveler from last year.
Sorry, but the euro currency isn't vital to the union at all 🤣 our moto is "United in diversity" after all
LMAO literally said respect euro not integrate it 🤣😂🤣
Having a bit of trouble with the sign off?
Go forward towards a USE. In this way we will get our own influence on the global stage. We can no longer simply rely on a sensible USA. Also a European defense system. Mutual help; mutual responsibility. Individual states that more and more govern responsible will increase solidarity.
Please, please don't call it the USE. I agree with the rest, but EU should stay! I call for referendum on the topic!
@@RafaelW8 ok, if it means so much to you too. I will call it anything you want.
Well..most of the data obtained was to be expected...I found it funny at the end though that Sweden supports a NATO-based approach considering they are not a NATO country
I think its mostly because of uncertainty. Starting a EU common millitary effort could be a sucess or a failure in the long run, we really dont know, while NATO is already established and in action and also accounts for the US.
The nations most supportive of NATO are usually closer to Russia, perhaps uncertainty combined with a potential threat leads them to support NATO more.
Just a supposition though.
My guess is that they want to maintain their own strategic independence, whilst encouraging the EU (most significantly an alliance without the US as opposed to NATO) to maintain a military capable of deterring Russia in particular, but likely also the rising Chinese influence seen in recent years.
The whole survey (unsurprisingly) has a pretty big bias toward countries who have or are likely to benefit from some specific EU policy to support it more than those who just end up paying for it.
Of course few people (survey makers, survey takers, politicians, pretty much anybody) consider the long-term knock-on effects of having larger, freer society -- especially the positive effects but sometimes the negative get overlooked as well. Most of the time they make their judgement based entirely on the immediate concern about whether its a (perceived) benefit or cost to their country at this very moment without thinking about how much benefit or harm will come from the action 10, 20 or 50 years down the road. People on the whole are just very bad at thinking that far into the future, no matter the issue at hand.
i think thats because, sweeden sees more of a benefit in nato than it does the eu, as the eus military would be nowhere near as strong, then youd have to ask who would lead, it. would it be the germans due to there power within the union, would it be the french because there a nuclear power on the mainland, would it be the british due to there nuclear power, modern carriers, holdings around europe and the world, arguably more experienced standing army. or would it be cycled on a basis, so would luxembourg or ireland be put in charge countires that do not have very large military experience or forces.
@John Burrett
International trade is one of the most effective ways of fostering a positive relationship between nations. The Shengen area also makes the idea of war between member states almost unthinkable, since the economies of the nations in question are so interlinked that taking a shot at your neighbour wouldn't just affect their industry - it would affect your own. That is a pretty decent deterrent in and of itself.
NATO absolutely has a lot to do with peace in Europe, primarily as a bulwark against external threats.
If diplomatic relations break down between two member states, I think the EU will be as much of a diplomatic glue - through economy, convenience and possibly sanctions upon them - as NATO would with its promises of intervention and shared military burden.
Of course if, say, Russia ever decides to formally invade Finland (again), NATO will be more of a deciding factor, but such an incident would likely foster its own set of controversies and tensions between the member states that could tear the union apart as much as consolidate it.
Both institutions are vital to the current stability in Europe, such as it is, and to write off one is to neglect the other.
As with everything NATO, it must be said that its value will be directly proportional to the rationality of its main garuantor, the US.
If Trump gets four more years in office, I'd be very concerned about the stability and efficacy of NATO, if push comes to shove.
So basically, if it's my problem, the whole of Europe must help. If it's their problem, well every man for himself thank you very much!
@Ant Sou It's obviously an opinion. That's how I see it. But it does look like that in my biased point of view when I saw results re Spain, Germany, Greece, etc.
Also because most people want a protectionist Europe rather than a market-driven Europe which is the antithesis of Europe. A protectionist Europe would just create another US and China that bully small nations. The kind that doesn't care about rule of law or fairness when it's applied against them. In other words, if it's my problem please help, if it's your problem, sod off.
Anyway in more serious settings whenever people challenge my worldview I would go back and check my assumptions and make corrections as necessary. But I really cba now, because it's Europe, about which I'm really lethargic and we really need to move on now. The results also are not particularly encouraging to me. It just highlights that people rather be apart than unite.
Also I doubt the methodologies adopted by this poll are sound. You ask people to choose between three things that are not really exclusive to one another and are ambiguous in definition. Your market could mean my protectionism. Your border controls could mean open borders to me. We're not a monolith and this poll appears to me (again my biased opinion) to group people's diverse opinions into over simplified categories.
So those are my excuses of being intellectually lazy 😅. Please don't take me seriously.
Bad sample for the survey since most of the responses make absolutely no sense.
Loaded subject, loaded questions.
The distinction between 'Market Europe' and the other two seems clear to me.
But the distinction between 'Protective Europe' and 'Global Europe' doesn't.
I think it would be reasonable to interpret it so that 'Protective Europe' was the right-wing option (protective meaning keep out the refugees, vs global meaning 'globalism')
But I think it would be equally reasonable to interpret it so that 'Global Europe' was the right-wing option (global as in 'let's make money from China and not worry too much about human rights', vs protective as in 'no, we have to protect our values of democracy').
Unless the participants were given information that wasn't repeated in this video, I'd be far from confident that the people who chose 'Global Europe' and ' Protective Europe' formed separate, internally coherent blocs of opinion.
For example, the UK and Germany favored one response, and France another.
Surely the real division between these three would be France and Germany vs the UK, on almost any issue relating to the EU?
It seems to me that the results of this survey might be summed up as "most Europeans don't want the EU to be a purely economic union. They want it to stand for something. But we messed up trying to find out what."
That limited result is still useful though, because it seems to put paid to the Leaver argument that "we're fine with the EU being what it was supposed to be, an economic union, before a small cabal tricked everyone into making the EU a super-state". At least according to this survey, most Europeans want what Leavers call the ' super-state'.
The problem with the EU on immigrants is that the EU has continued to fail to integrate them, which is something that Merkel and other presidents had to begrudgingly admit.
The EU has not what it takes to be a super state to beginn with, they have neither the manpower, nor the economic capacity or the industry to be one.
When you consider EUs future energy sector, which will be supposedly 100% renewable, it would make europe more reliant on other countries and all the more vulerable.
Left and right are on a completely different axis that globalism versus protectionism. There are at least 3 different axes in politics, there is the frugality versus spending axes, often seen as your classic left right axis, then there's the libertarian versus authoritarian axis, these make it sound kind of judgy but the question is on how much legislative power the government should employ and how harshly it should enforce these laws. The third axis is globalism versus regionalism, which in a more economic standpoint can be seen at free trade versus protectionism though these can be seen as separate fourth axis. Another possible axis is progressiveness versus conservatism, usually used when the legal and fiscal power of the government axes are merged into one left right axis.
And even this is a simplification (really you could add additional axes for any dichotomous issue) but a far better one than simply a left versus right axis. The left versus right axis was a useful tool in the cold war when it made it easy to tell who the "other" were, but it involves grouping many of these axes into one which means many alternative combinations are left out.
@@terron7840 The problem with the EU on immigrants is racists.
@@DaDunge Grammar point, the plural of axis is axes, as with crisis, crises.
@@terron7840 EU's population is significantly higher than that of the US, manpower's just fine, a few too many if you ask me. The EUR is the second most traded currency in the world, so I'd say your other two arguments are invalid as well.
the two speed video sounds cool
Sure hope so
Huh, I live in one of the mentioned countries and I didn't know of any survey being done... Makes me wonder who exactly took it?
Edit: so the whole poll seems like very badly done. Including only half of European Union, plus a country which is on the way to leaving EU. The questions seem a bit... strange. And the answers don't seem to match up with how we've seen countries act. Of course it could be government opinion Vs. people's opinion but it just doesn't seem right.
To fairly accurate predicting an election in say Sweden a country of 10 million. You ask between 1000 and 10000 people to get it right... so the absolute majority is not a part of studies that actually shows the thoughts in a country
10:51 unexpected rap
I‘d be very interested in what a two speed Europe could look like and which countries might adhere to what speed
A video for a two speed Europe would be interesting, particularly the integration of the Eurozone compared to those not in the Eurozone and what it might mean for the overall EU
The survey seems very questionable since most of EU countries have not been considered for survey and also UK being included...opinion of a few selective EU countries and one non EU country cannot be represented as the vision of Europe!
Depends when this survey was done.
My idea for Europe: Cheap and affordable travel; an Economic hub that maintains health & social protections, but is conservative when it comes to immigration (as that leads to lower wages). All countries should be allowed to maintain their regional and cultural differences (for tourism and regional specialities), yet be given the tools necessary to export their goods to the world.
The EU should maintain its economic sovernity from the US, but especially from China; politically speaking, we should align far more with the US and commonwealth.
Exactly. We should import a lot less chinese products, stop helping africa and start getting a lot closer to the us, canada, australia. Otherwise the disintegration of the eu is inevitable
No, the EU if anything should align *LESS* with all the Anglo-Saxon imperialists, and more with Russia.
OBrasilo ikr... they have human rights and developed societies. Russia and china are much better!
@@vladm.6859 The only long-term solution of preventing refugee crises is economic development in Africa. So you can stop helping Africa, but face refugee crises on a larger scale than 2015.
Great video
Not here to question the poll you used I'll leave that with Yougov but I do like the topic. The poll was a very good choice for bringing up some critical points. Great explanation! Cheers!
Doesn't matter, the EU will do what the EU wants.
not really, the budget negociations proved that
The problem with integration is that you are asking the countries of Europe, who have been (to put it mildly) squabbling with each other for four thousand years, to get on with each other. The scars run deep within these nations and I don't see them healing. It's only in the past century that we've made an active attempt to bring us together, without the need for military intervention.
Also, they are culturally VERY different. It is ludicrous to think one can make laws that don't collide with large number of people. It is difficult enough within a single country, much worse at a larger scale. Europe should remain looser union, so that local, more considerate laws can be passed.
If we had a common cultural base, more integration would make more sense.
And this de facto confirms that EU is mostly about shared market, common currency and fiscal socialism for now and only future (we’re living in it) will show if this organism can be anything else. We obviously have a common cultural base, but connections are so remote that you can’t really use them to frame the whole thing. On the other hand the stimulus package showed compromise can be achieved if situation is serious enough and I think there’s some hope here to start another baby step towards integration... you know what, however flawed EU is (and it’s deeply flawed) I still think it saved us already from killing each other in another horrendous war over some political aberration. It needs to be reformed for sure, but it won’t happen if people don’t push for it! Where and how do we go? I don’t really have the answers unfortunately.
Past century? 🤣🤣🤣 What was the Treaty of Trianon then?
@@Tovalokodonc That didn’t really include all of Europe. And considering that the Irish rebellion was in full swing when that treaty was signed, that is still not a peaceful Europe. You might as well say Napoleon was bringing peace to Europe.
@@DTChapman1 It still matters. Perfectly shows Western hypocrisy.
The two speed idea is interesting
Europe has one of two final outcomes: it will either unify into a federation or it wil break down.
If it unifies it will become more than a simple superpower, it's geopolitical positioning, educated population, resoruces, technical expertise and good relations with key players would allow it to speed ahead of the rest of the globa and become the initial spark for a type 1 civilization.
If it breaks down the nations will eat eachother out as they compete to becoming the most useful second fiddles to either the US, China, Russia or India where china will most likely be the leader in technology and the US in raw global force projection.
For Europe to unify they'll have to be or feel like they are the same people. This is ok if it's done through integration but unfortunately it's also done through other means like mass immigration sponsored by Germany. Population replacement is a sort of genocide and cannot be allowed. From a scientific viewpoint, maybe a union is the best, but from a civilizational point of view, it's like sacrificing 28 civilizations (or maybe a few less, since some countries share the same) to get one new but very mechanical. Sacrificing 28 distinct individuals to get a giant.
@@georgios_5342 Well that's wrong on multiple levels.
1)Even within the smallest of nations you have regional cultures.
By your metric anything bigger than a city state is "sacrificing individuals to get a giant".
This makes no sense.
2)All countries are mechanical.
Countries are by definition institutional machines meant to carry out functions that cannot be carried out from smaller scale institutions, as the geopolitical and technological climate chabnge so too should countries.
The unification of Europe would retain the sovereignty of european people in an era of multiple superpowers and nation-sized corporations and is the only option we have that could allow us to experiment and/or implement an alternative economic system to avoid the troubles that arise from combining capitalism and advanced AI, additive manifacturing, biological and cybernetic augmentation, life extension technology, etc.
Unification of Europe is better on both a scientific and civilizational point of view.
If we remain divided we will end up as either vassal states or stripped down corporate playgrounds that would make cyberpunk dystopias look desirable in comparison.
3)The immigration we are seeing is a drop in the ocean compared to the EU's population.
Immigration can be a boon if you manage it correctly, unfortunately we are not.
Also adding a few people to the population from immigration is not replacement.
Immigration happened throught human history.
how is a few million a population replacement.
4)
Now if you are talking about the migrant crisis then you might want to redirect your blame to the guys actually responsible for it. The US has actively destabilized the middle east, sponsored the destruction of it's secular political movements and any secular governent you could find (because they were left leaning) and then put extremists into power or if it could not do that armed them.
Regardless of religion this causes a medieval shitstorm.
All for cheap corporate oil to uphold the petrodollar.
So, how do we solve it?
A unified Europe could end the immigration crisis by putting it's foot down as a superpower and command the US to leave the middle east and stop backing genocidal terrorist steates it created by funding and arming totaltarian theocrats (worst of which is saudi arabia)
in addition we could rearm the secular center left movements and economically back them (a move that would be beneficial to us in the long run)
Guess what, no war and no corporate draining of their resoruces for nothing= far less immigration.
Also if the extremists are no longer backed you will see a return to secularism in that region (especially if we start promoting it)
5)
However there's still an elephant in the room: climate change.
If we don't stop it the people in the middle east will have no choice but to immigrate because things as they are now are heading towards that region experiencing summers that are incompatible with human life.
6) I'll just adress it, let's not hide behind your indirect rhetoric.
You are not afraid of a few million people entering a sea of 400 million
You are one of the types obsessed with your "genetic purity"
for one it's an infentile notion, genetics constantly drift, there's no static in that.
for another it's a meaningless goal, we're already entering the initial phases of genetic and cybernetic augmentation.
In the timescales you're worries humanity may very well be a fully artificial species, either totally becoming synthetic biology or fully mechanical.
Hell, depending on our lifespan and where our public funding in R&D goes we may very well be the first generation that becomes said immortal artificial lifeform. (there's a 50/50 chance we become a type 1 civilization in our lifespans)
@@fl00fydragon Wow, you made a lot of points, I'll try to address them one by one, but because I read the whole text, I want you to know that I don't like being polemical on these subjects. I have my own opinions and you have yours of course, and I want to clarify that just because in your perception, a few million immigrants is not a big deal, it's obviously a different situation for you and your country and a different one for mine. Immigrants that come into Greece are not a small portion (4 million registered entries since 2009 into a country of 10 million are not few), often times they even flood small islands, becoming outright majorities in them and declaring insurrections, like in Samos. Also, Erdogan is a borderline fascist politician who doesn't see Europe as a thing really but more as an alliance that, if it doesn't actually come to protect Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus, is irrelevant. The bad thing is that most Turkish politicians also agree with him on this and only disagree on internal and economic issues. Also, the fact that Europe doesn't take an active stance in this but rather forces Greece to accept back any immigrants sent away by European countries and also obliges Greece to keep the immigrants on the islands unless it wants them to permanently stay in Greece, combined with the fact that Turkey is being paid to keep them there but then sending them to Greece, makes the immigration issue a life or death situation for Greece. If we keep having to treat immigrants by European standards but don't have the money to, it will be a luxury that will cost us national sovereignty. Also, the people that are fanaticised islamists (they're in the minority among the immigrants but still a sizable portion) are against assimilation or even learning the Greek language. There's a serious issue of communication at this point. People all across Europe think that mass immigration is ok and maybe for countries that aren't majority Christian cultures and don't have an Islamist menace right on their border it is not as much a problem. But for Greece, it's suicide! Also, the fact that EU money is given to immigrants just for having children while Greeks have to pay EVEN MORE money when they have children leads to falling fertility rates (1.3 per Greek woman), skyrocketing unemployment (24%) and taxes (approximately 50% on companies and 24% VAT) and emigration of Greeks to Germany (500.000 young Greeks since 2009). Instead of giving money to people who may or may not outright hate our culture, I think it's more sensible to help the nation that is actually in Europe, the Greeks.
Also, why so much fuss about the type one civilization? I wouldn't really care about our technology. Technology is a means to an end. For me, the end is more important than the means. The end is to have a more democratic and safer country where everyone can voice his opinion and people are educated and have the freedom to choose about their lives, but where society can also unite to achieve common goals and retain its past and culture. If this isn't sustained, then who cares about the technological level? George Orwell's 1984 is a world that also had lots of futuristic technologies, but I doubt the people had a good time. Neither do they in China nowadays...
@@fl00fydragon ok, points one and two:
You said that even the smallest states have regional subdivisions. Yes, point taken. But, these regions belong to the same nation, the same ethnos. You can't divide the ethnos or give it away to a foreign oppressor. I'm not pro-state but pro-nation. I believe that states only make sense as long as they represent and protect their respective nations, and so does democracy only make sense as long as it is about solving the problems of a nation. Otherwise it is meaningless. Look at Belgium, an artificial state created to help retain the balance of powers in Europe. Each political party comes in two pairs, a Dutch and a French version. I don't think that internationalism really works with democracy. Look at Nigeria. The northern tribes (Hausa & Fulani) just took control because they were a numerical majority and then oppressed the Igbo people. This is why the Biafra War happened. Look at America, where their system has effectively derailed into demagoguery and race-parties; Whites vote Republican and all others vote Democrat, and then the result is up to white women. Do you think this is good? A democracy that works not in the interest of the people, but in the conflict and relative numerical size of nations? What even is the point of a state if not to represent a nation? Subdivisions are for more effective running out a state. But you can't compare an entire nation to a subdivision because that makes it non-sovereign. We fought for years and years and our ancestors gave their lives for freedom, not for a subdivision.
@@fl00fydragon also, unfortunately, there's no "restoring secular governments" in the middle east. Other than Persia, no other state in the middle east had a secular government to begin with. True, USA did destabilize the region, but you can't actually be telling be that it was all fun and games and democracy before. This is the very reason why those people have a hard time accepting democratic regimes and feel as they are enforced on them. Also, I don't get it. Why is immigration "a boon"? Can't we work with our own people? If you say that mass immigration is natural and has happened in the past many times, then you also need to specify how it has happened. One of three results are possible.
1)The newcomers are assimilated into the earlier populations, linguistically, culturally and eventually genetically, until they're part of the same people and there's no distinction.
2) The newcomers subjugate, oppress, and eventually assimilate the older population.
3) The newcomers slay and genocide the entire earlier population out of existence (especially often when the regions are lightly populated and the newcomers many in number).
Personal opinion: I'm fine with the first, the other two no thank you. Unless there's an actual serious effort to assimilate these people (and to make sure their waves are reduced to a maximum threshold equal to those that can be effectively assimilated) then they'll overtake us in no time. Judging by what did and still is happening on Cyprus,where on the premise of a 10% minority Turkey conquered and subjugated half the island, this outcome is not at all unrealistic for other Greek territories. Erdogan has already paid claim to Thrace, the rest of Cyprus and the Agean islands on the premise of "significant muslim populations that want to join the motherland". You suggest we let that happen? I'm not against the migrants or the phenomenon, I'm against some of its consequences, and yes, if there's no other way to halt them, maybe stopping the migratory waves for a while is necessary. This is the first time Greece has taken a significant migration since... Well, we don't even know when! Anatolia was in part considered core Greek land before 1900 but we saw what "migration" did there...
I don’t see the fundamental differences between the three “Europes”
I'd love an indepth video on the two speeds system and, if I may request, a video on EU like projects in the world (primarily the East African Federation).
As a Dutchman I'm slightly disappointed in some of the views my fellow countrymen have. Personally I would say that NATO is a sinking ship, from the friction with Turkey to the unreliability of the US. I'm a bit suprised too since the Netherlands has integrated some forces with the Benelux and German forces: the I (GE/NL) Crops since 1995, the 18th Tank division (Germany and NL) and Benelux military integration and cooperation even further on all fields.
I'm personally in favor of the EU taking a more global role, which is already happening. The EU-Japan bloc that is forming without the US is a nice example of this, and the close corperation between the EU and the currently forming East African Federation.
I agree with you. The US has proven to be unreliable since Trump's election and even if Biden becomes the next president, we shouldn't be dependent on another country's political affaires. The EU has the potential to be a global power if she integrates further and lets no room for short-thinking populists
I completely agree with the main comment on this thread. As for the comment by @@claas901, I don't trust Biden either, sure he seems more reliable than Trump but he's still an odd man, so I think it's indeed better to become a politically independent union with more integration.
Claas i hope Biden does not get elected. He literally scares me, i trust him much less than Trump. At least trump has been consistent at issues like china.
@@user-pd6bd7ir4z Lol, Trump is way more u predictable than Biden. Like don't get me wrong Both options are shit, but at least with Biden Basic government shit will be done. Like trump just doesn't know what he is doing, and if he gets re elected, I think we will see a civil war in the US
The US is fully committed to NATO.
Both parties. The Democrats are promising to heal the strains caused by the ineptitude of the current president.
Article 5 is not going anywhere, if your nations are attacked, the US will stand by you.
Honestly having the same currency no matter where you go in europe is one of the best things ever as a person, I can see it has some downsides especially with economic crisis and as a corporations. I don´t get the strong opposition from Denmark and Sweden tho since I think it would affect them too much, maybe its just sentimental value, which would be a bit silly
Europa hat 43 Gesamtstaaten.
ohne Euro: 24
mit Euro: 19
nicht befragt: 29
befragt: 14
Two-speed Europe video would be great!
How about a Europe for Europeans??
But whose gonna paid the welfare state.
Damn, we weren't asked about this in Portugal.
@Jerry O Sullivan Ah yes... The members of the European Union, United Kingdom... Amazing logic for sure.
@Jerry O Sullivan too right... We are far more important..😂😂😂
@Jerry O Sullivan was only joking😂 fuck knows why they asked anyone in the Uk...
But thankfully the sooner we can stop freedom of movement the better...
Except from Ireland of course because that agreement was in place long before the EU even existed... The EU using ROI as a political pawn during brexit talks was disgusting.. they used you country like a cheap whore at a gang bang...
@Jerry O Sullivan no mate where you think all the Romanians are gonna go when they can't go to the uk anymore
We weren't asked either in Belgium, probably one of the most pro-EU countries
Interesting
At the moment the EU is a bit of a messy compromise between a union of independent sovereign nations with areas where the nations share sovereignty for the common interests of all. It is that messy compromise that many brexiters were not able to understand. They still seem to think that the EU is a "state" distinct from its member nations. I have given up trying to explain. You'd have as much success explaining Lesbegue measure to a dog. Personally I would prefer a path towards more integration to counter the economic threats we face. How far that should go, I don't know. I guess as far as EU citizens and governments feel comfortable with
I don't know what I've found more puzzling:
-The categories they've used in this survey
-The fact of Italy supporting that much a "Market Europe".
A stable big market where all areas are doing well is a way for all participants in the EU benefit.
This does mean however that rules on taxation and corruption are needed to ensure that all countries have their spending under control.
This alignment will hopefully lead to further integration and prosperity.
I'm pro EU but everyone must be aware that the Euro has a possibilty of collapsing.
rules on taxation not needed, and the corruption thing will face steep oposition contries like Hungary and Poland are attacking judicial independence and in my country the courts were never independent despite not having the issues of those 2.
Pedro Réquio : each country needs to be fair but strict in garnishing it’s taxes is what I meant. I really think there is some traction to be gained there.
I think the taxing thing is interesting. I'm assuming you are referring to the single market forcing countries to compete with each other for lower taxes? And that this law is something that's meant to stop people and companies to simply shuffle papers to pay the lowest tax possible in the EU.
What type of legislation do you have in mind? I find it really hard to make millionaires/companies pay taxes in the country they are from without in some way inhibiting free movement. Perhaps some sort of split tax system if you are a dual citizen could work? Moving more weight to the consumption tax for the company part or something? I'm not too sure myself it's tricky!
It's funny to me that we have all these "fair competition" laws for the free market but no limiters whatsoever on taxes. Seems like it's bound for a race to the bottom. lowest tax in any given are wins all the company EU based revenue of that sector, it's asinine!
@@uku5840 what's asinine?
Stick entire project into reverse:
-Disband council of Europe and repeal ECHR
-Disband the ECB and the Eurozone
-End the EU-ETS bureaucratic nonsense
-Deregulate automotive industry ffs
-Allow for a more modular approach, sovereigns like Switzerland should be able to regulate migration
-Get the anti-firearm nonsense out of Schengen regulations
-Complete reform of the budget, at least the net contributors should not be subject to Brussels funding rules
-Regulation of digital market is all wrong, repeal GDPR
Yes
@@MaelPlaguecrow6942 One thing I forgot - the complete removal of all the sanctions on Russia and other foreign countries. These shitty policies cost a shitload of money, are impossible to get rid of and only really work to force third world shithole countries in line with the merkel agenda. Not something I want to be a part of. Either the sanctions are removed or the customs union has to go aswell.
The only thing that I agree with, is the removal of sanctions on Russia and other countries.
I believe that until the end of this century, we will see a complete integration of our entire continent. From Lisboa to Vladivostok.
This surveys show the limitations of these things. The questions are loaded and over-simplified - of necessity - and the topics slanted to reflect the interests of the people who are doing they surveying. It is immensely damaging to reduce public discourse in this way.
Those 3 options at the begining aren't mutualy exclusive dude. Also winners and loosers is needlesly devisive. It benefits all EU countries to have wealthy and sucessful neighbours in the block, because then there is more money to circulate for everyone. Once money is sent/spent in one country it doesn't just sit there untill the end of time :p
While somewhat true, the southern countries are seen as slightly too corrupt and unorganized from the pov of Finland at least to build any sort of trust towards them being able to handle themselves properly.
@@Ichigoeki yeah I get that. That's why we need oversight from nuetral countries and full transparency to the public as conditions for the money being sent.
@@Hession0Drasha Switzerland ?
"It's the end of the EU" since 1990.
i know many people hate eu or/and wish to be destroyed but eu will survive now more then ever we see why
Heil Europa
The EU was founded in 1993 ... !
@@maikotter9945 👈... And there we got the sole German correcting me on a sarcastic joke. 🤣
yes please, a video on two speed Europe 👍
I can see an issue with all the different militaries being tied to member states instead of a central power down the line. But that's kind of how it has to go, considering a top down approach in the EU is already getting pushback on other issues.
Me, a colombian, watching: Wtf, guys?
Wdym
@@Potjenjks2988 7:18
Europeans aren't really keen on lending financial assistance to Columbia.
VanBaguette uh so?
You asked what they ment and I tried to answer it. Sorry if I confused you.
I thought wdym means what do you mean
As a Brit, I'm unsurprised by some of the views that were put forward across Europe as a whole and to be blunt, the figures for financial assistance are quite telling. UK participants in terms of the net score on this were more willing to help the Commonwealth members overall: Canada, Malta, Cyprus, are amongst the highest figures, the only outlier being Ireland, however I'm proud that we're still willing to assist other countries that are in need of assistance - it's a case of Brexit being: no hard feelings, but this ever closer union thing wasn't for us.
In terms of where the EU wants to go with ever closer union, that's up to them. Membership would be more attractive overall to potential member states if they didn't have to join the Euro, for example. Access to a two speed Europe could be a double edged sword however, while some may want to race toward a federalised union, others may become wary or outright decide that this isn't what they want upon seeing how it operates and attempt to stay in a position of associate membership, similar to the Swiss.
The boiling frog analogy works well here, don't get too keen to rush into further federalisation, or other states will hop out of the pot - the UK enjoyed the bath for 50 years, but the water wasn't even boiling when we leapt out!
meine Währungen
Die Deutsche Mark habe ich am liebsten!
17. Januar 1984 bis 30. Juni 1990: Mark der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik
1. Juli 1990 bis 28. Februar 2002: Deutsche Mark
seit 1. Januar 2002: Euro
Oh Finland...
How where the countries of this survey chosen? Was it because of practicality, because other countries would answer different that wanted results? or because the survey in the other countries didn't got enough responses for a representative result? does this survey declare this? (A survey without a reasoning why certain things where asked/decided could be crafted for pre-known results instead of crafted for unknown results) I'm probably a bit to critic about it, but without knowing who they asked I'm not able to fully trust the results as representative (however, they are giving some direction of some countries, and could be seen as a sample of eu thoughts)
I read the report and downloaded the full dataset myself. Unfortunately they don't outline their methodology choices in the paper. However, they do say that previous (2018, 2019) versions of the survey only polled 11 countries, which they've now expanded to 14. I imagine they'd like to survey more countries, but are constrained by resources like time and money. I don't know how they prioritise which countries to survey so I wish they'd put that in their paper.
what scientist with a sound mind asks brits about europe? ... they're OUT! **points to the dugout bench OFF the field**
to put it in a table view and make them look like they don't want to "help" other countries maybe?
Commenting for the algorithm
Two speed Europe video please!
nice comm theory on the Patreon plug
People don’t know what they want. Probably just to be left alone from people that drive these polls.
In short,
A global and integrated union without NATO is needed.
We need a USE.
Giordano Machiavelli which is Part of NATO
@@thorH. Yes, as a Europe, not as individual nations. We really need an European military, trusting US to bail us out if war happens is too risky. Not to mention, as Europe we would have more say on NATO matters.
@JGW 97 I mean, US is already on a downwards spiral anyways.
vitas75 And our budget will be used more effectively. So the military is stronger overall with more integration.
You showed that 8 countries of 28 (incl. UK) want to give preference to a NATO driven military integration.
Unfortunately you did not show as to how many prefer an EU focused military integration.
As it stands, it does allow the assumption that 20 countries (the vast majority of EU countries) prefer the EU driven option.
Also the EU focused integration does not mean that there is no NATO integration, but that the majority of EU member states prefer an integration with EU security interests primarily in mind.
As a Colombian, that one poll makes me sad :(
I am for a Federated States of Europe.
I think integration is super important for Europe.
Then, everyone could be happier... "European culture" that the conservatives care about would be protected, the "Market" for the liberals would be integrated and Europe could begin being a world benchmark on social issues for the left wing.
Of course there would still be problems as you can't please everyone on anything... But federalism is good in this way...
Compared to a Enited States of Europe or continuing as it states.
I am Central European and United States of Europe is a must !
Russia is not sleeping, China is developing quickly and acting aggressively while US is kinda falling apart lately. We (EU) really need to cooperate much more. Its not the time for dividing even more.
Also securing EU military safety should be prioritized over NATO in my opinion. It should be treated as homeland security.
As long as every state has a veto and an own legislative body for national laws and own taxation, and leaving the EU is possible and expelling a country out of EU is possible. And independence of a region (with its own culture and language) is possible within the EU. I don’t want a Catalonia-Spain, Alto Adige-Italy, Flanders-Belgium or Scotland-UK problem in the EU. A central state is not sacred. I’m from The Netherlands and if Friesland wants to be independent, they can (are allowed to) leave The Kingdom of The Netherlands. I would be sad about them leaving, but self determination or independence is a human right and that should also count for a cultural entity. The central state should not be a suppressor and blackmail or force a cultural region to stay in the central state.
As a non-European, I believe it's of the uppermost importance to reach a Federated States of Europe, in the next century or so. Mankind has progressed when smaller political entities join together to face the challenges ahead. The natural progress, from polis to feudal states to kingdoms to nations, is to become a nation of nations, or supranation. It's the natural next step. However, unlike in the past where all the unions where usually done through conquest and war, this is a peaceful effort. Therefore, it is paramount for the whole world that Europe succeeds. From it, other regions will hopefully follow its steps and learn from the missteps. I envision a 23th century with only a few supranations, and hopefully a 25th century with a single global government body. One can dream!
I agree. Just like Germany and Italy have united it is time for Europe to unite as well. It's better to be a powerful block on it's own then to be a satellite of USA, Russia or China. And now China is very likely to overtake us economically, Russia is _as usual_ and USA is becoming less and less reliable so we might be on our on.
United we stand, divided we fall
Also each country having a veto is a horrible idea. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had that, where each noble had a veto right and just look what happened when nobles started using them. That thing should be abolished as soon as possible.
TLDR US is higher but growing more slowly
"Thanks for the reminder to subscribe to tldr us" - Americans.
Yup
More on the 2 step (or the tango)?
I love my country despite being a member of the EU, NATO and Eurozone nobody gives a damn about our opinion we are not even shown in the results
Only around half of the EU nations were interviewed, this probably to keep costs down.
@@MDP1702 yeah my country belgium isn't in it either. Probably because Belgium isn't much of a problematic country like Netherlands(frugal four) or a superpower like france or germany and we are much more pro EU and biased. So we are probably just left out because of that
@@god6384 Yeah, our country usually remains rather neutral, maybe because we have the EU capital here, maybe because we are used to compromise. Probably a mix these and other factors.
"Besuchen Sie Belgien, solange es noch gibt ... !"
This was a pretty confusing poll. Someone should do a more in depth analysis on it.
Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not
Can we have a vid on a two speed europe, please?
It needs to sort out the political voting in the Eurovision Song Contest for a start
The EU Parliament Election´s prognoses/results announcements could be done in the ESC style!
But with actually numbers of seats ... compared to equal points ranges.
Criteria: from smallest (Malta) to biggest (Germany).
0 of Malta seats ... go to AD (EGP: 0)
2 of Malta seats ... go to PN (EVP: 2)
4 of Malta seats ... go to MLP (SPE: 4)
3 of Slovakia´s seats ... go to HLAS (SPE: 7)
3 of Ireland´s seats ... go to FF (ALDE: 26)
4 of Denmark seats ... go to Venstre (ALDE: 30)
2 of Austria´s seats ... go to HPM (EDP: 2)
2 of Austri´s seats ... go to GA (EGP: 10)
12 of Hungary seats ... to to FIDESZ (ENF: 20)
3 of Czechia´s seats ... go to Pirata (PPEU: 4)
5 of Czechia´s seats ... go to ANO (EVP: 35)
8 of Netherland´s seats ... go to the VVD (ALDE: 70)
12 of Romania seats ... go to ISMV (EDP: 20)
10 of Spains´s seats ... go to Podemos (ELP: 30)
10 of Italy seats ... go to Lega (IDP: 50)
15 of Italys seats ... go to FI (EPP: 175)
20 of France seats ... go to LREM ... (ALDE: 90)
1 of Germany´s seats ... go the Bündnis C (ECPM: 5)
1 of German´s seats ... go to ÖDP (APEU: 7)
20 of Germany´s seats ... go to the CDU ... (EVP: 190)
25 of Germany´s seats ... go to the SPD ... (SPE: 170)
As a Dane, I say we firmly apply the breaks.
I have no interest in giving politicians from other EU countries more power in the internal matters of my country than they already have.
And what if the EU leaders/government is elected by you? Similar to how you do in your federal level?
@@MDP1702 The leaders "I" elect, should not have any say in how the peoples of southern, eastern or western europe lives.
Besides, I live in a country with a small population, and for as far as I know, the amount of representatives sent to the European Parliament is based on the population of the country.
Which I believe is the most logical and fair solution. But it does also mean, that even if all Danes voted for the same party, it would still amount to about a tenth of the strength the Germans would represent in the EU.
It would be "a token force" and nothing more.
Then there's the whole issue with the media. Most Danes doesn't know even the most basic things of how the EU works. I mean, the total number of presidents in the European Union (president of...: the European Parliament, European Council and European Commission being the three most fundamental ones, imo).
Add to that, that most people (at least in Denmark) vote for the same parties in the EU election that they do on a national level, despite not knowing what parties the representatives they vote on are a part of in the EU and what they stances on different EU matters are.
And for some reason, I highly doubt it is much different in other countries.
So when the people who vote, barely know what is going on in the EU, because the media barely covers it, then it can become quite difficult to hold the politicians in the EU responsible for their decisions.
Personally, I believe people who speak of the EU, myself included to a large degree, judge the EU and its' worth based on the idea they have of it and not based on knowledge of how it actually works and what decisions are made.
Sorry about the long rant.
@@sfp2290
*The leaders "I" elect, should not have any say in how the peoples of southern, eastern or western europe lives.*
But the people you elect now have a say in the lifes of people in other parts of Denmark, so in the end you get the same result: your vote influences what happens elsewhere.
*But it does also mean, that even if all Danes voted for the same party, it would still amount to about a tenth of the strength the Germans would represent in the EU.*
Yes, but people don't vote in the EU based on nationality, they vote based on ideology. People from a town in Denmark also don't have the same voting strength as a large city. This is universal. If this is something you have a problem with, you'd need to reduce the politics to a "city block" level. It doesn't really matter if you scale this up.
Now what could be different is regional concerns. For example many people in Denmark might feel x about Z and in Italy most people feel y about Z. This can be a problem, however this also can exist in a small nation, my country Belgium is a good example of that. That is why there would be a senate where the senators are voted based on equal sized district. A north German district might have similar concerns as a Danish district and completely different concerns than a south German district. Eventually on the European level it would be Germans/Danes/... it would for parliament: left, right, center, ... and for the senate: north, south, east, west, center, ...
And for parliament I'd just have a general European list or otherwise few very large lists, not nation by nation.
*Then there's the whole issue with the media. Most Danes doesn't know even the most basic things of how the EU works.*
EU media networks would come into existence and the way the EU works would be learned in School, similarly to how it is done now for your national government.
I also wouldn't be surprised if there comes a univeral "EU" language that will be adopted in all nations as a second/third language. I'd bet it would be English. And EU wide media would just use that (as well as EU politicians when outside their nation).
*Add to that, that most people (at least in Denmark) vote for the same parties in the EU election that they do on a national level, despite not knowing what parties the representatives they vote on are a part of in the EU and what they stances on different EU matters are.*
That is just a problem with the current system. With a better new political and election system that would change.
*Personally, I believe people who speak of the EU, myself included to a large degree, judge the EU and its' worth based on the idea they have of it and not based on knowledge of how it actually works and what decisions are made.*
Indeed. I can agree with your sentiment in terms of how the system is operating now. I do expect this to eventually change. A federalised EU can't function with the current system.
Also sorry for the long comment :p
Well, Covid 19 has shown that we need more competences for the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Open borders require a robust and coordinated response. They should be able to instate emergency measures like quarantines that would receive approval from the EU parliament after being enacted.
With such measures, we could have controlled the outbreak as Australia did. But the countries did not want to give away competences.
Interesting. The issue is that under the Lisbon Treaty healthcare is a national issue, but certain areas such as research can be shared.
Interesting point..
@@stephenconway2468 Well, it seems there should be some more cooperation in this field. I know, merging the different health systems is unrealistic and undesirable for the mid future.
But an instituted and active collaboration in the field of epidemics is needed. If they can organize billions to mitigate the present pandemic they should be able to institute the means to stop the next pandemic earlier.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 The Treaty allows for EU level cooperation and there is nothing to stop bilaterals. Indeed, Ireland and NI have/had such cooperation and this was despite the politics in that area.
Let's hope that this will happen. Covid-19 seems to be here to stay, and will require work to make it possible to have some normalcy. Ideally, the WHO could lead that effort, but the politics from Trump and others is destroying it when it is most needed.
@@stephenconway2468 Working together is always useful, and in case of the British isles, it surely has some effect. Still, in the big picture, the effect is at best local. Fighting an epidemic is like building a dam. It will only be as strong as its weakest part. A concerted effort of the whole EU would make a big difference.
When it comes to who would be a net beneficiary or contributor to a structured support fund, I'm not sure it's helpful to use the terms "winner" and "loser". Arguably, if you are a net beneficiary then that means that your country has faced serious problems (which may or may not have been of your own making) which means that you have _already_ "lost".
Put it another way, I would like to see the option to say "I think my country will be a net contributor _and I am absolutely fine with that_ ".
Another factor that is ignored, is that even if some countries that are more likely to be hit by natural disasters and immigration, etc. would be "winners" and other, wealthier countries would be "losers", the so called losers would be compensated by the fact that if the so called winners are better off with these funds, they will have a better economy. Better economy equals more purchasing power, more productivity etc. Countries like Germany would win from countries like Greece or Hungary having better economies.
Brothers makes a Good point.
Romania and Hungary: we know full participation would help us, but nationalism holds us back.
Don’t know much about Hungary but that’s definitely not the case for Romania. Corruption is the main factor that holds us back, most romanians are in favor of adopting the euro, contributing more with taxes and also using more eu funds in order to develop better infrastructure
As someone who lived in both countries - Nationalism is more of an issue in Hungary than Romania. Romania has other really big problems too, but not in the same vein.
@@davidbodor1762 Why is nationalism problem?
@peter072003 Very well said! Nationalism has been the poison making people seeing enemies instead of simply a neighbor and economic/cultural partner. Not only in Europe... this is a toxin running rampant across the globe.
What if we have 2 Unions. The first Union formed by: Germany, France, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Denmark. The second Union formed by the rest of the European countries. What do you say for whom it will be profitable? This is how the first union can do what is she doing now, that is to bring immigrants for her, to continue the green agreement, to make laws only for them. Anyway, we hope to reach this solution soon.
The problem is that solidarity stops when financial interests are in the way with some EU members like Germany for example. It's funny how every EU country agreed to codemn the election results in Belarus so quickly, but in the case of Turkey violating EU waters (Greece), 5 countries (Germany, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria and Malta) vetoed the EU wide sanctions proposal against Turkey. Double standards!
Not different standards at all. Different situations, different countries, different implications lead to different decisions and different means to solve a problem.
@@randuru Germany proposed that Greece share the natural resources in its own territory with Turkey. So no, Germany is only interested in its own economic interests
@@cravingtuna1561 So Germany asks Greece and Turkey to find a common ground and work together in the exploration of the gas fields. And you find this unreasonable? I don't know you personally, but you seem to carry a little anger and prejudice towards Germany in your heart... Germany is not your enemy at all. On the contrary she is one of your stoutest friends. Please try not to insult her, especially not for things modern day Germany is really not responsible for.
@@randuru you think it's reasonable to give Turkey resources belonging to Greece cause they want them? There is a reason all reports regarding the Turkish agresiveness talk about a French leadership in the eu while "Merkel cowers" (exact quote from article)
@@cravingtuna1561 We all know that Macron and Merkel have very different personalities and very different styles of doing politics (and different domestic competences as well btw). This doesn't mean that they don't try to reach similar outcomes and results. Did you watch how they just met again in person two days ago to fine tune their next steps regarding the current political problems? If these two so very different countries and politicians can do, I'm very convinced that Greece and Turkey can achieve something similar as well. And I don't mean to give away the gas on Greek territory for free. But maybe both countries can found a joint venture to really produce and sell the gas? Please think long-term here; sultan Erdogan 'the Great' 🙄 will be history in a couple of years.
2 speed... Definitely but it needs to be properly explained to the people as most have no idea what it is
Definetly a video on two speed