I think that was a reference to the US election interference, not the EU.
I find it pathetic. Verhofstadt and people like him are one of the things that turned me off the EU and turned me into a Brexit voter. They routinely describe almost anything they don't like as "destroying democracy" or "violating democratic norms" regardless of the facts of the matter. In reality they couldn't give a rats ass about what the people want. Just compare cross-Europe opinion polls asking people what they think the top priorities of government should be (hint: immigration, terrorism) vs what the EU actually chooses to do.
This is an age-old strategy of "make sure those who have less fight each other for scraps instead of asking the rich to pay their fair share."
They were massive problems before, i agree, but adding more than 1 million refugees over the course of 2 years (in the case of Germany) adds a very real problem to the housing market and we should be honest about that. You can not blame so called right wing populists for hoping on this issue if other parties fail to even talk about it.
There's plenty of vacant housing in Germany. It's just not in the places people want to live anymore (i.e. mostly rural East Germany). Housing is scarce in the urban areas but that didn't really change.
The 1 million number sounds scary in isolation but it's really just a drop in the bucket. The real problem is our attitude to refugees and our immigration laws: a lot of people are stuck in a legal limbo where they are forced to live off welfare because they're not allowed to seek employment or attend craft schools or universities, many who are technically allowed to do those things only have temporary visas that get extended quarter-to-quarter but could be discontinued at any point. This creates a lot of unnecessary uncertainty while also isolating them socially, hindering "integration", which in turn increases frustration and all kinds of social ills.
Additionally, our welfare system is based on the assumption of a growing population but our birth rates are too low, so immigration is actually necessary. There's a lot of untapped potential in the refugee crisis, our attitudes just need to change to see it as an opportunity rather than a problem.
And I do agree with some of the concerns. (See Corbyn downplaying grooming gangs, antisemitism, etc and see the current gov ignoring the economic impact of Brexit)
Meanwhile the current government isn't ignoring the economic impact. So far there has been none - the economy is growing and has little spare capacity, if you believe the 4-5% unemployment lower bound. As for future economic impact when the EU inevitably tries to block UK companies and trade, that's pretty much all the Tories are talking about these days. Very much not ignoring it. So I'm not sure I agree that the government is downplaying the concerns of the people.
FTFY
> when the EU uses border/customs rules for countries they don't have an agreement with
I'd also point out that last year in the first 3Qs the UK grew its economy, true, but at by far the slowest rate of any of the G7 countries indicating we are lagging behind. Not all of that can be definitively put at the feet of Brexit of course. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-performanc...
I don't think the government is actively ignoring the economy, I just think they are hamstrung by the clear divisions in the nation (and indeed their party) as to whether we pursue a hard Brexit, or a Brexit in name only.
BoE and the profession of economics in general has a long history of failure to make correct economic predictions. Carney in particular has a catastrophically bad track record of predictions with respect to Brexit and has been publicly and repeatedly slated for it.
He can pull some figures out of the air to claim that the UK has "lost" economic performance compared to some model he won't reveal, if he likes. Those of us who understand the limitations of macroeconomics will roll our eyes and ignore his biased pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
I do find your argument for Brexit to be a bit better than the average but employing the same logic London should just be a separate city state because there are ppl outside who vote against London’s values (openness and inclusion). I’d be the first to admit that in that vote if asked I would vote for an independent London from the U.K. and this is exactly why general population should not be making these descions.
The MPs are the ppl claiming to know best so you should trust them
Hmmm. But I also claim I know best. Now who do you pick?
Dear God, no. Those are primarily external problems, we should (and are, thankfully) focused on fixing internal problems and making ourselves better.
The EU is in my opinion a great success, way greater than what most people realize. Previous generations, who still remember WW2 or its effect from their childhood, recognize what kind of monumental achievement the EU was - which is based on unanimous votes by member nations with varying governments from all political sides!
Unfortunately, younger generations have lost sight of this, some of them erroneously believe that wars could not start again in Europe without the EU. That's very short-sighted, historically, Europe has been torn by wars almost all the time.
Although the EU is certainly not a warrant for peace, it makes a peaceful future overall much more likely in the long run. Take the cordial relations between Germany and France as an example, without the EU these would not look nearly as good as they do now.
Besides that, there are also economic reasons for the EU, of course, but I just wanted to mention this perspective which is all too often forgotten today.
So what about different cultures? Does the EU "destroy" local culture? About that I have to unfortunately point out the sad truth that nationalists generally tend to lack culture. Few outliers aside, the people who actually advance culture have practically always been international cosmopolitans and humanists. And there is a reason why we all don't speak Latin any longer. So I don't buy the "culture" argument from nationalists, it tends to be very hypocritical.
Finally, as for the priorities you mention, sadly there is a case for technocracy to make here. The impacts of terrorism and immigration are minuscule and almost neglectible in comparison to the impact of, say, advances in technology, and the public's fear tends to be badly aligned with reality.
That claim is hard to square with the literary canons of a number of European peoples, the creations that these people consider the bedrock of their culture and which are exported around the world as what that respective people has to contribute to humankind. You'll find that these canons are to a large extent dominated by nationalists, especially in the wake of 1848. Sándor Petöfi, Mihai Eminescu, Taras Shevchenko, and Elias Lönnrot were not international cosmopolitans, at least not in their literary activity.
We live in different times today. 2018 is not 1918. I would be worried if younger generations could imagine to waste their lives and their wealth for war.
The problem is that too many of the younger generations trust the older generations (current politicians) which trust in lies and wars as solutions. E.g. Syria, Libya, Iraq, Israel.
US, and to a lesser extent European countries, have had little difficulty finding bodies to send to war in the last 50 years.
I don't think the EU is a recipe for peace or is making Europe more peaceful. Far from it. The EU looks a lot like a bunch of very unhappy neighbours kept in line by the threat of wildly over the top retaliation from the federalist core if they even think about stepping out of line.
Look at Brexit. The EU is talking about grounding all flights, banning British firms, insisting on obedience, suggesting that the UK be split up to convenience them and demanding huge ransom payments (and don't argue with me about this, these are my perceptions). Then you look at eastern Europe, Catalonia and so on.
I do not perceive the EU as a happy peaceful entity. If it looks peaceful it's only in the sense that a successfully dominated population doesn't fight back. True peace comes from understanding, collaboration and compromise. The EU sucks at all three.
Also bear in mind that the vast majority of all British politicians were "Stay", because they knew what's at stake.
It is also mysterious to me what makes you think that the EU would "suck" at understanding, collaboration and compromise. These are central pillars of the EU, without those three factors the EU could not have possibly been founded by unanimous votes of all 28 member states. All I can say to people like who - who genuinely leave me baffled - is that you could inform yourself better about the EU structure and what EU programs and institutions are actually doing and, most importantly, how incredibly cheap the EU is in comparison to the respective national budgets.
Last but not least, there is either peace or no peace. People, states, and nations will always disagree about certain matters. Your idea of a "true peace" is naive and unrealistic.
But many politicians of the European elite and European national elites live in a fantasy world where privatization, austerity, competition, unconditional support of the USA and Israel, wars, bombs, islamic rebels, sanctions and brazen lies and propaganda against Russia (e.g. Skripal, panama papers, referendum in Crimea) and Syria (after Libya after Iraq after Yugoslavia after Iraq after ...) create peace, democracy, friendship and prosperity.
I was pleasantly surprised that aggressions against Iran were even a topic among politicians and in the mainstream media in Europe instead of just following the USA and Israel and Saudi Arabia into the next disastrous conflict. But this reluctance has more to do with business than with morality and wisdom.