Now, before I begin to write on this matter I would like to apologise. I am sorry for what must be yet again another EU debate post, I have been relatively ignorant of what has gone on in Forums due to inactivity, but I can imagine the amount of posts those interested have had to navigate. A leisurely browse through off topic recent threads suggested to me that this has been a hotly debated subject amongst Forums, and perhaps what I have to offer in this thread has already been covered, however I will never the less say what I feel I need to here. In the wake of Brexit, the unthinkable has happened. Britain has voted to leave the European Union, and despite choosing this fate themselves, a large number of the public have expressed regret at this decision statistically, leading to calls for a (extremely undemocratic, in my firm opinion) second referendum. It seems like people are finally heeding the warnings of economists, and suddenly our romance with Europe has bloomed again. You only love her when you let her go, the song goes. How relevant it is today. However I for one have stomached the Brexit hangover for a few days, enduring the intial withdrawl symptoms of "what have we done" and, despite my confidence being challenged initially by hordes of economical statistics and theories bombarded in my face, feel that we are better off without the EU. Why? Because I believe that we, as a nation, should not be governed by an undemocratic, out of touch political elite who get into the corridors of power through friendship, such as being old school chums and the like (The House of Lords being abolished, which I support, comes to mind.) Where is your evidence? I hear you cry. He's just an anti-establishment loony, I imagine the majority of you thinking. And yet, let me explain these claims in some further detail. My biggest issue is the idea of a super-state. I will make that abundantly clear, the thought of a united European nation - one body - terrifies me to the core. I believe in sovereignity, and I think that the very notion of complete European intergration is a very bad thing indeed. There was a particular quote that I enjoyed on the radio the other day, that goes along the lines of "the Germans wanted to take over Europe by force - twice - then realised they could do it diplomatically. Next is the world." Food for thought. Anyway, there have been suggestions at the highest echelons of the EU of a united European army, specifically to combat Russia. I quote Jean-Claude Juncker himself here, the President of the Eu, saying "In the very long run, we will need a European army. Because we have to be credible when it comes to foreign policy #wahlarena #withJuncker." A valid point, you only have to look at the former League of Nations to know that lacking a credible army is a serious flaw, but the idea of a European army is deeply... disturbing. I for one don't feel comfortable about this at all, and would feel that such a united force would pose incredible threat to the balance of the world itself. The bureacrats' dream of a united Europe, of one flag, one anthem, one continent coming together; it's all very worrying. Dangerous. And it has to stop. There are claims among many eurosceptics that the EU is entirely undemocratic, and that laws are made by unelected bureacrats. Now, that's simply straight up wrong, because the EU does have democratic procedure. A complicated system, one that many day to day voters struggle to understand, yet not entirely democratic. Numerous institutions such as the European Council and the European Parliament mean nothing to the average Joe. They become blank names, blurred organisations lost in a flurry of similarly operating bodies. Indeed, unless you are well versed in European politics, even you may not understand their full purpose, and instead may gravitate to thrown around figures that represent them such as Donald Tusk, or Jean-Claude Juncker. The problem is that, for the everydayman, the understanding of the EU system just isn't there. Tell me, British readers, can you name your local MEP? Can you name any MEP's, other than the former Nigel Farage who, despite being labelled a mockery in politics due to some outrageous incidents, is someone who I think has got his perception of Europe right many times? There is a fundamental issue with the understanding of how this union works, and it leads to a lack of confidence. I believe the British people don't believe in the EU because they aren't familiar with the processes that occur in order to appoint... say, the President of the European Parliament. What irritates me personally, however, is how petty the leaders of the EU have been over the years. They sit in their seats like children, openly lectured by crusaders such as Mr Farage who have carved open their little comfy delusions of unity with ruthless, brilliant and ultimately, correct verbal attacks. Before you switch off, I remind you I am not pro-UKIP, I am more someone who agrees with Mr Farage's Euroscepticism. He told them that Britain would one day leave, and they laughed. They chuckled, humoured by the very notion. They ignored this Englishman, dismissing him as a madman. His criticisms were irrelevant, the minority. And yet this week, Mr Farage has his Brexit, and yet the EU bureacrats continue to sit like children, refusing to listen, going 'la la la' over any other opinion that doesn't fit with their "Eutopian" future. Mr Farage may embarass himself more than the odd time, but at least he has exposed these adamant, stuck in their way politicians for what they really are. Obnoxious, petty and arrogant. Jean-Claude Juncker, Martin Schulz, Donald Tusk, all laugh at Mr Farage as if he is a joke, an embarassment. Yet was it not Juncker himself, the President of the EU, who's sobriety came into question following a rather notorious incident involving him calling the Hungarian PM a dictator to his face, as well as slapping his deputy in the face and telling the Greek PM, Alex Tsipras, to wear his tie? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this man turned up to a political conference drunk. Drunk. Let that sink in. You can most likely find the clip on YouTube, simply search it if you are interested. Or what of Donald Tusk, who has referred to the U.K as a "small little island." Hell, in a time of political tension, the President of the European Parliament even laughed at the recent exit at Euro's 2016, saying "U.K Iceland 1-2." Apparently, the man partially responsible for European integration forgot that England and the U.K weren't the same thing. I don't know how to insert gifs, but I would be putting the facepalm gif here about twenty times if I could, without fear of being silenced for spam. There are some positives to the EU - I could delve into much further detail on the benefits - however I hope from reading this post you have understood my personal feelings on the EU, some of its flaws, and how integration could potentially even be dangerous to international stability. Maybe you even learned something, or your opinion changed. Please note, I am not British myself but I am in fact Swiss, but I have lived in London for some time.
I like your post, but bare in mind that Greek people voted NO last year when they were asked, while few days later their "No tie" PM Alex Tsipras translated it to a YES. I forsee the same thing happening to England. The reason is that native people is divided. They think about their genre and not their neighboors'. I agree that EU is coming to an end but this will be painfull to all. Maybe WW3. But that's just me. (Sorry for my bad English, im not British)
Deserves a full response but that will come later. For now what I will say from what I have seen. Is that Junckers is basically the new guy with a silly little moustache trying to dictate to Europe. He is blackmailing the UK which will be a free sovereign nation in two years. He blackmails every member state also. Uk leave so they will be punished with economic sanctions unless they accept my terms and rules. All nations that leave will be punished. He is nothing more than a dictator. Imposing economic sanctions ( which is basically hat they intend on doing ) because a nation will not accept their rules that they may not control their own borders is nothing more than an act of war. It also flies in the face of the court of human rights which states nations may impose restrictions within reason. Those in the eu follow their guidelines. As Britain voted out. And will leave. Their borders and restrictions are for them to decide. Junckers and the eu parliament have zero legal authority on such matters once the uk leaves. Their blackmail should not be tolerated. And the eu dictatorship needs to be challenged.
Ftse is recovering and the £ is getting back up again. Let's just see what happens once all the panic is over.
The current panic was ridiculous. It's what happens when and if there is a new trade deal that matters. And whether we retain access to the single market. And that will take at least two years and 3 months to sort out. As for Cameron quitting which I personally initially hated. Did he fall on his sword to buy the UK an additional 3 months for some stability to set in before negotiations really start? Or is he just a sore loser? That said. I def agree that junckers and the current political position of the EU far more closely represents a dictatorship than a formal union that respects democratic choices of member states. Also as we have not left yet and will remain a member state for two years. Surely blocking Cameron from talks is not acceptable whilst the UK is still technically a member for the next two years. The future of the EU is in the hands of politicians that behave like school-ground bullies. It's totally pathetic to watch. I would rather entrust the decisions to the group of nine year olds at my school.
I find myself agreeing with you a lot lately chaos. The U.K. Needs a new PM to lead the establishment, I believe Roy Hodgson is currently looking for a job. He's experienced in dealing with overpaid entitled brats who can't do their job properly.
I skimmed through it so hopefully what I say isn't too irrelevant I still don't see how the EU is undemocratic Also, I think the issue here is that the world is undergoing a lot of globalisation. The younger generation spends more time on the Internet, less emphasis is put on individual cultures which is probs why so many voted remain. The older generation are more loyal to the traditions and are in general more "nationalistic" and because the UK is dependent on trade, they may have seen the influx of immigrants and the influence of their own cultures of the country as being a threat. Perhaps why they were more nationalistic. Maybe that's all bs but imo there will come a time where there will be no boundaries between individual countries albeit that may be in centuries. Whether that's a bad thing or not, I dunno but resisting those changes will be difficult. Just something I've been thinking about recently. But if talking only about economy, brexit wasn't the best option.
Also; Even though we don't know much about the EU, I kind of expect ppl to do their jobs but fair point. Brexit could have gone well if Cameron actually had a plan for it instead of twinkling his fingers for 3 months and if we had a credible new pm. Also the referundum should have been parliamentary binding, all the uncertainty just divides the country in 2 and the parliament could have put their own conditions on it. I'm half French half brit (English and scottish) but lived in England (london) the longest. Just sad to see my 3 countries pull apart. I was always more proud of being a brit but whatevs now.
I don't find scary the idea of an European Army. I just find it useless. Almost all European Union countries are NATO members already. A fast respons task force might be needed. But that's already planned inside NATO therefore I fail to see why an european one is needed. About European Union being undemocratic... I don't think it is. Each country vote for their MEPs according to population. Indeed maybe the economic factor should be take in the algorithm used to establish the number of MEPs a country can send. Those MEPs chose the President of European Comision (equivalent of prime minister) who is chosing european comisioners (ministers). Basically is same algorithm as national elections. One vote his local MP, then the MP vote for a prime minister and the prime minister is chosing his team. About Juncker in particular he's no threat. I bet that by the end of the year he's going to be the former Presiden of European comision. I doubt he can survive a vote of censure in European Parliament. And I'm quite sure that vote is going to happen very soon.
During this campaign I noticed that many people have just a vague idea about European Union. For example "we get less from EU than what we pay". And this is true. But guess what!? UK could get more than UK's contribution to EU budget. Money are right there. Just need to apply for funds. How many people actually know that they can apply for an european union grant when they open a startup company? I've seen fishermen angry on European Union. How many of them actually know that they can apply for EU grants to buy new and better fishing boats, new and better nets? Heck...how many local councils actually applied for EU funds for infrastructure (roads, water supply, etc.)? But this is not people fault but government fault... I really can't understand why the government didn't had a national strategy about this. "We pay 18bil and we get only 8bil back! Let's start a national campaign to inform and ask young antrepeneurs, local councils that they can and they must apply for eu grants to get rid of negative balance".
Agree with Vladimir, no need for European army if already have NATO and UN Although UN is useless in most circumstances and they are both corrupt. Although if there was a European army, it would probably be less corrupt as it would be easier to regulate. No real need for an army these days though, what we going to use it for.
Oh no! The turks are coming. Well...can't happen. UK could just use their veto against any potential candidate... Simple. Ok...Now UK chosed to step out so maybe Turkey will join by...2030 lol. And after they joining EU countries can impose extra 7 years of restrictions for turks. Maybe I'm just simple minded but I really can't be bothered by potential events that might happen after 20 years.
I like your input it's nice to read the insight and opinion of someone with a little common sense and knowledge of the eu.
To those who are still unfamiliar with why the EU is considered (admittedly not completely, but still signficantly) undemocratic, let me explain. When President Juncker was elected, he was the only name on the ballot paper when European Parliament elected him. The same goes for Martin Schulz, who was also the sole name. Not exactly a wide variety of choices. The European Parliament is made up of 751 MEP's who are democratically elected, although they are limited in power. In theory, EU Parliament can remove the EU Commission, but even when it was drowning in corruption from 2004 onwards, (one particularly humorous example that comes to mind was that the anti-fraud commissioner on the Commission was a convicted fraud). The Commission itself is where the real power lies, as the 27 members of said institution are unelected. They can propose laws, and even though European Parliament can amend the laws proposed, the Commission has to approve any of these changes before they can take place. The elected Parliament of the EU is an illusion, because it's quite clear what body has the real power in the EU. There are a number of undemocratic flaws here, I hope I could expose some of them for you all.
You're using a quote older than toilet paper, elevators and guns that fired more than 3times a minute and trying to apply it to today Smdh