To provide a more nuanced view, there are different reasons for this:
- some see problems in other countries that China does not have
- some faced racism or xenophobia. For the more privileged ones, it might be the first time in their lives to get discriminated against, and they respond by becoming extra nationalistic.
- some simply don't see a way to participate in the western system, so they pragmatically buy into the Chinese system. Keep in mind that while it's hard today for a foreign company to operate in China, it's also not easy for a Chinese company to succeed in western markets, especially more competitive ones like US.
- some are being nationalistic for publicity.
(The worst part is that one is Taiwanese! Not even Chinese. And she thinks of it as insurance. She feels like things for her in the West could turn sour in a hurry, so she needs an "out" so to speak.)
So applaud you to be interested in those nuances and being empathetic!
I don't doubt for a second that people might be 'very proud' of their culture. For better or worse - that's normal. But to be proud of the bad stuff, even when they are literally living abroad for those reasons - now that is just weird.
I'm genuinely curious, in what sense EU = Europe is wrong? Granted, not all European countries are members of EU, but EU is a big block with several significant majorities among their constituents - a big population, economy, living style, culture, history, especially if UK could be included.
Why it's significantly wrong to approximate Europe as EU?
I would agree that Europe is more diverse that China. Eastern Europe + Russia is not more diverse than China. Neither is Western Europe + Iceland. And China is 10 times more diverse than the states.
source: Russian born, US raised. Also lived in Spain, France, Japan. Been to Every EU and European country, and ~80 countries total. Wife is Chinese, not from the mainland.
In computer terms, their hardware (race) is essentially identical in capability, disregarding minor individual defects. At the software level (culture) there is tremendous variance.
I often wonder what percentage of these disagreements are because of a misunderstanding of what level of the system is being discussed &/or that fact that substantial numbers of people don't/can't differentiate between race & culture.
That one would even ask this is scary!
Well ... a completely unelected Executive making laws for one. A completely unresponsive government - they do make some neat laws, but they are fully elitist, they have a total disdain for anything populist.
A system wherein there is 'no way out' i.e. they will punish anyone who leave (i.e. Brexit).
Have a look at Junkers statements regarding the Treaty of Lisbon referendums. Those words should have sparked a revolution, and he should have been jailed long ago.
If there were alternative systems to the EU, for example, a trading block that was powerful enough to counter the EU i.e. UK, Norway, Switzerland ... then people would see that they don't have to be 'pro EU' to be 'pro European' and there would be alternatives.
The EU is one country away from having to face this, because Norway, Switzerland and UK are not quite strong enough, but with one more ... then we'd see some kind of alternative.
There would be 'competitive federalization' models and people would then have choice.
Right now, it's a dictatorship of the elite, and there's no way at all to get the Executive branch to budge on any issues.
Even literally voting 'no' on the Treaty of Lisbon was not enough. You can literally vote them down and they will march forward with their plan.
That is not to say the EU isn't in a deep, existential crisis, because in many ways it is. I would simply caution against throwing out the baby with the bathwater in this case, because the fundamental achievement of the EU is something far more important than overly disconnected bureaucrats with a penchant for arbitrary regulation.
So you're arguing on my behalf: an 'EEC-like' Union would be very popular all around, and as you point out yourself 'helps with stability'.
A full on political union I suggest is the opposite of stability.
I think the EU should be 'thrown out' only because it cannot be reformed, but that a set of treaties could preserve the best parts of it - particularly those issues related to trade, some degree of tax harmonization and the ability to create some EU-level policies or regulations.
It's sad frankly because the EU is actually 'mostly good' - but it has existential flaws.
It's going to be a tough few decades in Europe.
That really depends on the countries involved and the form of the union. Even in your version of events, with a reversion to an EEC-like state, I expect we would eventually see closer political union between France, Germany, the Benelux countries and whoever else wanted to join.
You also need to figure out what to do about the Eurozone. You cannot indefinitely sustain a monetary union without closer fiscal integration, which I assume you oppose, but dissolving it has its own issues both in the short and long term (there's a reason it was created in the first place, and that reason is not solely to facilitate closer political integration - even though that was indeed a goal).
The EU parliament is elected and have the final say on laws. While I agree it's way too bureaucratic, it's still a voluntary club and there are check and balances.
The simple fact is that the EU is a remarkable achievement. That Europe could emerge from the smouldering tribal ruins of the early 20th century and build a continent-wide union of prosperity and peace is incredible. It ain't perfect but it also ain't the boogyman some morons make it out to be.
They do not create, write or formulate law - they have only the ability to reject it. Yes - they can work with the Executive to evolve legislation, however in practice, this is not really the case with most legislation. I'd argue that individual nations, via the Council etc. have more influence than Parliament.
Once again: the EU Executive is totally unelected, and fundamentally unnacountable.
2) The EU - post Treaty of Lisbon - is not a 'remarkable thing' - it's a failing system. From 1950-2000 it was more or less an economic Union, less so a political one.
Surely, European nations coming together post WW2 is 'remarkable' - but much of that is simply the 'new world order' , and of course the EEC.
Most European nations would be happy to participate in an EEC-like union of some kind - which was the basis of the 'remarkable era' that you describe.
Put another way: if Europe was right now, in a fully EEC-like Union, much like NAFTA, with visa-free travel, easy work visas, relatively frictionless borders, and some level of political cooperation - would Europeans vote to enact a political union? (Especially one in which the laws were made by an unelected group?) the answer would be a resounding 'No'.
The number of shape-shifting arguments that pro-EU folks have to get into to side step the democratic illegitimacy of the Executive is utterly astonishing.
Nobody seems to be able to provide a basic, decent argument for why in fact those who make the laws in Europe are not elected.
Most political leaders have to bend with the political wind, that's usually a good thing. Jean-Claude Junker et. al. do not care one bit what Europeans think, because they don't have to.
So, presumably you're talking about the Commission here, right? So, the EU structure is pretty weird, and I would agree with you that a much more democratic structure is possible and indeed preferable.
But it's not an unelected executive. It's an executive entirely controlled by the Council of Ministers. They are the people who really don't want more EU-level democracy (like a parliament which can enact laws), because it weakens their power as national governments.
Instead, they argue about stuff for years in Council, they win loads of concessions, and then they go home and blame "Europe" for the decisions which they (claim to) disagree with. (Are you here, Mr Cameron?)
Like the EU tend to do a good job of acting like they're evil, but it tends to come from the wildly divergent interests of the states, the commission and the parliament.
A lot of the real nastiness got exposed by the financial crises, and it's a terrible shame that we don't have eurobonds for financing capital investment across the EU, but again, that's not because the EU are "evil", it's because the Germans won't let it happen (the French wanted it desperately).
I think what I dislike the most about Brexit, is that it distorts the EU balance of power. Britain often acted as a swing state between France and Germany, and without that influence, things are going to get strange.
They voted to create the EU in the first place, which is why the EU exists. They can vote to leave the EU, and one country has. But most countries haven't, and won't.
To comment on your statements, the EU certainly united Europe more then anything in the past has achieved. At the same time it offers a scapegoat that nationalists can use to further their agenda- and some fall for that.
Cry me a river. The EU has been nothing but patient with the clusterf*ck that has been UK's leadership trying to both leave the EU and take all it can from the EU, and actually due to pure incompetence, doing neither.
Do you want to know what punishment for leaving a union really is? You should maybe ask the south and the confederates how their secession went down.
> ... a completely unelected Executive making laws for one. A completely unresponsive government - they do make some neat laws, but they are fully elitist, they have a total disdain for anything populist.
You mean like a QUEEN?
Sometimes is almost too sad the level of pro-brexit "arguments" thrown around.
There is no system in the world where all the decisions are made by "elected executives". There is nothing more elitist than a monarchy.
It only seems that way when you get sucked in to the flamewar vortex, and then only temporarily. Please just don't do this on HN.
You might also find these other links helpful for getting a clearer idea of the spirit of the site:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html
There's actually a very interesting kurzgesagt video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ
-- Really? A lot? I don't think so. My experience is Chinese middle class rarely care about human rights issues. Most of them are extremely cold blood. As long as their own family is not hurt, they don't care about human rights issues at all. As long as they can get rich and stay rich, they will praise the authoritarian regime.
Isn't this true for middle classes in most countries? Would there be any tangible benefit if the Chinese middle class made a symbolic show of supporting human rights (as is often done in the west), while their leaders continued to use their tax yuan to prop up polluting industries, bad working conditions, Uighur mass detentions?
Nobody knows because it hasn't been done. China, like Russia, is powerful enough that it will only become a free country if its rulers want to.
For a long time I sort of assumed that the advantages of living in a democracy are sort of self evident (provided you live there), I apparently was wrong.
I've lived in an absolute monarchy with human rights violations. I can also list a number of democracies with human rights violations, as well as very poor infrastructure, poor economy, violence, etc.
For many in the latter countries, they'll easily trade their democracy to get food, education for kids, and security.
Some democracies do well. Others don't. It's not an indicator of quality of life, and Maslow's hierarchy of needs is largely applicable.
I guess I should specify that I was thinking of the "good democracies". I get there can be things people don't like about any of them, but I figured the trade offs between those and totalitarianism was self evident if you lived in one, I guess I was wrong.
Have you lived in that totalitarianism, though? And are you aware of their perceptions of the shortcomings in your society?
Speaking more broadly, though, how great you think life is under certain circumstances is a function of your model of the world, and thus your ideology (once you get beyond food, shelter and security).
Another aspect I've found: People who come from a country with a lot of "problems" have developed their minds to be relatively tolerant/immune to them. But small issues in the country they move to are large for them, as they've not built mental defenses against them. Don't underestimate this aspect. I recall once when I was in school a conversation between two foreign students (from different countries). A was complaining about B's culture, and was itemizing the headaches. B countered with all the problems A's culture had. A responded with "Yeah, but I know how to deal with all those problems!"
If you are a cynic, the best part about democracies is there is a much lower chance of violent overthrows - much easier to just wait it out and vote the current leaders out next election; barring an extremely corrupt leader whose existence is irreparably damaging the country - and that’s pretty much one of the few good things about it.
Leaders trade absolute power for not having to watch their backs as closely.
now you may start to explain any idea other than yours not really ideas.
Almost nobody believes the West is perfect (or any other system) is perfect.
Shoot - I'll bet you could get a lot of people to buy into an authoritarian system that maintained peace.
But the issue of Han nationalism which extends to the extermination of Tibetans, to the incarceration of 100's of thousands of Uighers etc., to the total lack of democracy ... combined with the fact that the system is still hugely corrupt ...
I mean, it would be one thing if China were at least a well ordered machine, but it's not, there's corruption from top to bottom which completely undermines any legitimacy in whatever 'system' they have.
Summary: 1) Nobody really thinks any system is perfect. 2) Most people would prefer the rule of law, basic democracy, and low levels of corruption, and at least basic human rights. Those are almost universal.
You should have stopped there.
Basic democracy is so ambiguous really anything qualifies, and by all accounts, China has basic democracy. In fact, they have infinitely more democracy pre-revolution France did.
And the fact that even in the world of today, more than 2000 years after the Greeks, democracy is not universal prove your second point is not such a sure thing as you wanted it to be.
-- Hannah Arendt
Why do you think the CCP is so prickly about Taiwan? And to a lesser degree Hong Kong?
They're living proof that other systems can work well for "China."
There's a clear long-term goal of destabilizing ROC and encouraging unification from the PRC side.
This is by far the scariest part.
Even people who knowingly try to 'escape the system' still support it, as though 'the party = China'.
I believe this problem exists a little bit in Europe where so many believe the EU = Europe, they use the terms interchangeably.