You must accept cookies to view this message.
How about vote no on the EU altogether. This entity is too large, too powerful and has a track record of passing terrible laws around internet usage.
How about vote no on the EU altogether. This entity is too large, too powerful and has a track record of passing terrible laws around internet usage.
Of course brain drain has been hugely beneficial for Germany. It also helps Germany that weaker economies are tied to the euro which keeps the euro's exchange rate down.
I used to be pro-EU, but time and time again they create regulations and directives that are simply harmful for our future or don't consider collateral damage. Furthermore, Germany and France seem to be pushing hard on becoming rulers whether the other members want it or not.
>but I disagree that leaving would improve things for any country.
Of course leaving won't improve things because the EU will try to punish any leavers as much as possible. The entire EU situation is just depressing, because you can't leave, it won't improve and bad decisions keep being made and you're forced to abide by them. And what makes it even worse is that the pro-EU people are telling me that I should be happy because of these bad decisions.
Ultimately all bad decisions must be paid for. This is the hidden cost of letting the EU exist. Unfortunately, the longer it exists the more painful it will be to leave.
The EU is not associated with peace and of course cannot guarantee it. Citizens of EU countries are better off with their own country's rule of law than to succumb to the generality of all of Europe.
> There's trade benefits inside the EU, free travel for all citizens, and, recently added, no more roaming fees for mobile phones.
These all come at a cost you don't yet realize.
Optionality is king. I'd rather have twelve options than one.
NATO was founded 70 years ago
The EU as we know it was established 27 years ago
NATO, despite its faults, has done more for European integration and peace than the EU. It carried Europe together through the stark darkness of the Cold War; how would the EU fare against such an existential threat?
It's true that today's EU was only established in 1992/93, but it is the result of a very long process of European integration starting in ECSC in 1951 and the EEC in 1957. Cooperation between Germany and France started remarkably early after World War II. A few years earlier, they could not have been more bitter enemies.
I agree with you and would say that the EU is utterly useless in a military conflict, precisely because there has always been the NATO to fall back on. This might change in the future as the US is becoming less reliable and more isolationist from a German standpoint at least, then again, there might be no political power capable of reforming the EU further right now.
In short, I think the EU helps Europe have internal peace. For everything else, I am glad to sit under a nuclear umbrella.
How about you just leave EU?
It's full of countries out there that are waiting for you and don't care about protecting your data.
You're free.
There are also many other issues where EU does better than IT. Food safety, environment regulations and trade agreements, just to mention a few.
While smaller units are almost universally better (imagine how different history would have been if the provinces of China had been independent countries), but does mean that each individual country must make many more agreements on their own, and have to shape their own regulations for things like food safety and environmental efforts, which might not turn out as well if they are not forced by the collective.
I completely agree. In my opinion it should go down to the individual level.
Let's say China had independent states/countries per province. And, they all agreed to a set of laws individually but disagreed as a collective set of laws.
This would mean that most citizens would suffer as the laws are (at best) an average of the opinions of all citizens of China.
Being an average, most people would have at least one disagreement on how a particular law should or should not be. There will be of course some some people that lie on the exact average. These lucky people would be 100% fairly represented.
In order to be fair ultimately law needs to favor the individual, not a country, state, or other larger group.