world-renowned Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas, who recently chaired a 12-hour debate on "what is Europe?", argues the EU has been a good thing for his country and for the UK, where he began his architecture studies in the 1960s.
Sitting in his Rotterdam office, he told me the Brexit camp was full of people who "fundamentally want to change England back to the way it was before" and lamented the way, as he sees it, the EU has been used as a scapegoat.
— bbc.com
Koolhaas joins many other architects, including David Chipperfield, Richard Rogers, David Adjaye and Thomas Heatherwick, who oppose Britain leaving the EU, and support a "no" vote come the 'Brexit' decision at the upcoming EU Referendum on June 23.
For more behind 'Brexit':
33 Comments
people on the left who are choosing Brexit are not choosing it in order to supposedly "go back". In fact, chauvinistic nationalism would be anathema to them. trying to lump everyone for the Brexit within the right wing part who are also choosing Brexit for totally different reasons is a sly and dishonest thing to do. The reasons for leaving the Brexis, for the leftists, are the inherently and fundamentally undemocratic nature of the EU and its Council which economically and politically overrides people's well being.
To boil this down to an architect's self serving point of view and clichéd associations is ridiculous. Has the EU been a good thing for the people and their socioeconomic wellbeing? Would it's absence imply more control over their affairs in accordance with their wellbeing?These should be the questions...not a trite dismissal of peasoup and British mannerisms. Has the Olympic architecture kept the Greeks from rummaging in bins to salvage some food? Has Zaha Hadid's Milano project helped hoardes of youg Italians who cannot find decent jobs if not jobs?
I thought this breed of architects decided that they were to be apolitical. Or is it ahumane that they meant.
Finally, there is nothing to do with making Britain less european or less culturally integrated. the EU is a political and economic construct, as many point out. It has also proven to be the opposite of what it purports to be. It has brought misery, wars (via its parallel military arm, NATO), mass poverty, and is slowly turning Europe into a poisonous racist fortress (as in the response to immigrants).
If it is possible to put this in simpler to digest but not politicized.... what is this Brexit referendum about?
@Rick England (but not UK) leaving the EU...
Isn't the UK which includes Scotland and Northern Ireland the sovereign state that would be leaving under the referendum (proper term in UK might be plebiscite ) on June 23.
Right now, I've read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
I know, its a Wikipedia but it summarizes to an extent but I am looking at multiple sources to try to understand what's going on.
While the term Brexit is a portmanteau of the Britain and Exit. However, UK is the sovereign state that currently is EU member but UK includes Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I'm still reading up on this so don't worry, I'm not intending to say you are wrong. I'm currently under the impression this referendum is UK wide not just England.
@Rick, yes but there is a lot of talk that Brexit would accelerate the trend/push towards self-rule and there would be votes (again in case of Scotland) to leave the UK and thus stay in EU.
Think a Brexit vote would push Scotland out of the UK? Think again
What I don't understand is how it got to this point where the debate is about exiting, not reforming? Is the EU so fundamentally/inexorably flawed that it cannot be changed? The decision to exist seems extreme, although I'm not really familiar with all the cultural and political dynamics at play.
What I understand so far, the European Union Council is not elected and they assume the power of decision. The EU Parliment is merely respresentation with no power to object (their recommendations are not Worth the paper they're written on), to stop laws from passing through that contradict the will or desire of their constituencies. The EU is set-up not to be a democratic entity. Emperically, what happened to Greece and other EU members is enough to testify to how the system is rigged for the benefit of the few rich, for the banks, etc.
Furthermore, if anything, the EU has, for reasons related to the previous point, actually strengthened the fascist right wing in many of its member states and this has driven the EU as a whole to react to this sentiment by itself moving towards the right (its inhumane treatement of immigrants).
The fear mongering about the Brexit is largely the response of reactionary elites worrying about giving power back to people who might well put down restriction that impede their profit making: for instance, nationalization of local industry, protection of workers rights, protection of local production...the EU is implicitly against this; it is an undemocratic front for a rich club, an oligarchical european regime. It cannot be reformed; structurally
The EU is a congenital undemocracy built for big business and secretive lobbying to thrive in and built to resist the scrutiny of a genuine public. The EU is an outsized behemoth that simply doesn’t fit with the Green vision of a future lived on a more human scale
from The EU is an outsized behemoth beyond reform – the Green case for Brexit
CoC,
I'm reading more into this quickly and finding information that seems to contradict what you've said about the EU Parliament having no power to reject or stop laws.
The design of the EU means that policy-making at the European level is dominated by executive actors: national ministers in the Council, and government appointees in the Commission. This, by itself, is not a problem. However, the actions of these executive agents at the European level are beyond the control of national parliaments. Even with the establishment of European Affairs Committees in all national parliaments, ministers when speaking and voting in the Council, national bureaucrats when making policies in Coreper or Council working groups, and officials in the Commission when drafting or implementing legislation, are much more isolated from national parliamentary scrutiny and control than are national cabinet ministers or bureaucrats in the domestic policy-making process. As a result, governments can effectively ignore their parliaments when making decisions in Brussels. Hence, European integration has meant a decrease in the power of national parliaments and an increase in the power of executives.
Second, and related to the first element, most analysts of the democratic deficit argue that the European Parliament is too weak. In the 1980s, some commentators argued that there was a direct trade-off between the powers of the European Parliament and the powers of national parliaments, where any increase in the powers of the European Parliament would mean a concomitant decrease in the powers of national parliaments (Holland, 1980). However, by the 1990s, this position disappeared as scholars started to see European integration as a decline in the power of parliamentary institutions at the domestic level relative to executive institutions. The solution, many argued, was to increase the power of the European Parliament relative to the governments in the Council and the Commission (Williams, 1991; Lodge, 1994).
Successive reforms of the EU Treaties since the mid-1980s have dramatically increased the powers of the European Parliament, exactly as many of the democratic deficit scholars had advocated. Nevertheless, one can still claim that the European Parliament is weak compared to the governments in the Council. Although the European Parliament has equal legislative power with the Council under the co-decision procedure, a majority of EU legislation is still passed under the consultation procedure, where the Parliament only has a limited power of delay. The Parliament can still only amend those lines in the EU budget that the governments categorize as ‘non-compulsory expenditure’. And, although the European Parliament now has the power to veto the governments’ choice for the Commission President and the team of the Commissioners, the governments are still the agenda-setters in the appointment of the Commission. In no sense is the EU’s executive ‘elected’ by the European Parliament.
Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU - Princeton University
I look forward to how this progresses and keeping bumping this topic to keep it on the front page as this important decision is made in the UK.
bump
Aside from the vote on Thursday here in the UK, what do you all think about what is happening in the US for the coming election. There's been a distinct diversity in party politics in the UK post 2010, I'd like to hear what US based designers and architects think of the current field of play in US politics, is the US system just different or could multiple parties work in the US?
As an additional aside, could there be a US Labour party that could win votes post Sanders?
now would be the time for a real "Labor" party (we spell it without the U) . There is a cross section of Trump and Sanders supporters who think same - mainly diseffected working class who feel the trade agreements have been shit. This same group is also less interested in being in wars we do not belong in (damn near all of them). I know it may sound like a stretch that there are Sanders and Trump supporters who think same, but there is a group of people, including myself, who find there are only 2 things important to a nation - 1) economy and 2) defense. Defense means defense - not most of what the US has been doing for at least the last 70 years. This group doesnt find moral and political issues all that interesting or useful. ......How is the Labour party defined in the UK? (i know i can google it, but since you framed the question Sam)
The US political system depends on the false dichotomy fed to citizens by the media. Third parties only gain traction among the people capable of thinking beyond media propaganda ...which is a small minority.
I get what you are saying jla-x but Ken Livingstone won the first mayoral election here in London on an independent yet socialist mandate, perhaps due to objections of the electorate over the Iraq debacle. London is a different place to the UK though.
Olaf, why not have a US Labour party (or Labor if you prefer)? There's a similar demographic here in the UK in terms of cross-over of UKIP and Labour supporters (from press accounts) who are going for a brexit, I'm yet to meet any so far.
In terms of what you feel are important to a nation, those are probably low on the list for me and my contemporaries, it's NHS, Education, Equality, Compassion/benefits, and a fair days pay for a fair days work, with enough tax and appropriate spending to look after the kids/old/infirm. I'd wager this is pretty much the case globally as it is humane.
*** Looks to Olaf ***
the current political climate in america is a joke sam. the candidates that yell the loudest get the most attention, so they do their best to be offensive or derisive or otherwise just plain horrible, so they can attract media attention and get people talking about them, which leads to votes over here.
there cannot be a viable third party candidate at president. the republicans and democrats essentially have institutional systems in place to make sure they can control the elections they want to control. it would be unlikely but not impossible at a congressional level, but it does happen at local elections.
I dont know why people wanted Berns when there was Jill Stein around.
curtkram see tduds blog link, somewhere in TC....here it is - https://medium.com/@timdudley/bern-out-aec98bfd32ca#.9pr74g4re
Sam - Health, Education, Equality, Compassion/benefits - All those things are available and fluid after 1) Economy and 2) Defense. Without 1 + 2 nothing follows.
A while back I had drinks and dinner with a friend and his friend who remembered there partying days in Istanbul back in the late 70's....and in the conversation we arrived at the US election. The lady had helped write the electoral process for a new government in a hotbed area. I asked her, based on people I knew from that area - they said a Democracy would never work there. She followed it up with - Democracy is the best thing humanity has to offer (so far) and then followed it up with the US's election process is NOT democratic. See Curt's post above.
Tduds post is how the labor party here should/would start. Small offices at small places with one goal - create work with fair wages.
*bump* to put it in the front of the line
Rick don't see nothing wrong
with a little bump and grind.
Don't want this thread to get buried as it would be interesting discussion to keep on the forefront as they go through this referendum. As there is certain implications that can effect the architecture profession on the European front such as the UK.
So a little bump so it doesn't become a PITA sifting to find the topic.
It be nice if we could just get the vote over with, counted and know the outcome but it never works that quickly.
It is interesting that the liberal force (basically rich liberals guarding their wealth and the chance of expanding on it in the name of dubious concepts such as free competition and open markets), united against Trump in the US and Brexit in the EU, uses the overt right wing backing of Trump (necessarily right wing) and Brexit (a call by both right wing and left wing factions for totally different reasons) to justify itself again. While the real reasons it does so is to pass off Hilary Clinton ( Wall Street's candidate) as the president and to retain an EU Britain subversive to the banking and financial elites.
So yes, there is a cross-atlantic resonance in the ongoing events. Except that Trump is bad and Clinton is just as bad if not globally worse (she is a warmongerer)...while the alternative to staying within the EU might be a pretty good thing (Brexit).
Again, it is a farce that Jill Stein is not being considered. I have heard her talk a few times now and she is a very down to earth politician with a serious equitable program, environmentally, socially and on grounds of foreign policy. Why can,t such a third party break into that two party cycle? Lack of media coverage? LAck of funding? Lag and lack inn advertising owing to the prejudice against all third party entries?
a. No one gives a fuck about what Koolhaas thinks
b. Shut the fuck up, Rick.
sameolddoctor,
a. I'm not interested so much about what Koolhaas thinks.
b. I am looking at what the implication of the Referendum in the UK will be and the effects. In some regards, how it reflects architecture profession outside the U.S. It might not make a damn difference to you so who gives a fuck whether or not you are interested. If you're not interested shut the fuck up and go to the threads you are interested.
Hi chatter of clouds, I think the term Liberal has very different political meanings in the US and the UK, here in the UK it is tied to the Liberal democrats.
I get the impression that progressive and liberal labels of politics in US terms are used in place of stating a democratic socialist position due to the red scare and post second world war history in US politics. Is this a fair observation?
Sam,
Can you further elaborate what Liberal democrats means in the UK so we can better understand the comparison and labels used in the U.S. for that or closest equivalent.
I ask only so as to have a better understanding.
In addition, there is also people on various political parties who don't know the right terminology or if they do, are using it wrong on purpose often for political and social effect.
Sam Sharpe, by that I mean thought having its origin in classical liberalism: individual freedoms, capitalist mode of economy, limited government interference, highly individualist, immanence of private property. thus it is not limited to parties but pretty much is the root of governing economic and political systems in both the US, the UK (liberalism owes most to Scottish thinkers) and elsewhere.
hence the modern construct neoliberalism, a term that survived a brief period of reference to a state-restrained liberalism only to end up referring to an extreme global liberalism of privatization, the transformation of government from a body that puts limitations on private interests to one that facilitates and is subservient to them.
also, what do you mean by democratic socialist? Are you referring to Sanders? He is more of a social democrat. or probably a social liberal ...but not a socialist. And the idea of him being called a communist is laughable.
*BUMP*
i believe Balkins thinks he has figured out the thinking of Archinect and it's editors
another sad clown face
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.