The only people who benefit from the EU dissolving are nationalists and enemies of the block of countries that make up the EU (Russia, China and to some extent the Allied US whom would prefer us not to be united).
Which are you?
I'm simply not fond of unelected authoritarians, neither am I fond of fascists governing my community from far away.
Which are you?
You should be very concerned about our House of Lords, our Monarchy and the cronyism and corruption that is currently plaguing our elected officials, and lovely "unelected" advisors to the prime minister such as Dominic Cummings, who's policies used to be followed almost as religious dogma.
You can worry about the "big bad EU" when you understand the EU more.
I'm aware that it is a bold and inflamatory claim to say you don't understand it enough; but I feel confident making such a statement as anybody who has spent more than 20 minutes researching how the EU works would know that it's folly to say that they're "unelected authoritarians".
Lets start with the unelected bit:
EU Commission is elected by Parliment. (IE; indirectly elected)
EU Parliament is directly elected by you, the individual, they are your MEPs, and they're elected in one of the most democratic ways we know of.
EU Council is heads of state (IE; Elected)
Council of the European Union is non-heads of governments of European countries. (IE; Elected).
> neither am I fond of fascists
Might want to look up what that word means, the very idea of a united EU is the opposite of fascism. Fascism is characterised by nationalism.
> governing my community from far away.
The distance between Luxembourg and London is less than the distance between London and Glasgow..
(489km vs 556km as the crow flies)
I'm British, I was a little bit nationalistic before I left the UK and realised that I was foolish.
I'm not accusing you of being a fool but you're certainly misinformed.
I find it's better to not throw stones if you live in a glass house.
the modern house of lords is advisory and completely subordinate to the commons
it is a glorified select committee, there to scrutinise the law and slow it down
the commons can override it, but to do that it has to wait
it's essentially the EU parliament: the inferior chamber that can slightly amend and block law
the sovereign is similar, the commons is superior and last time there was a fundamental disagreement the country became a republic
the UK is full of contradictions like this: formally we're theocracy ruled by an absolute monarch appointed by god
but that's not how it works in practice
vs. say the US, which is the complete opposite on paper (strict republic, limits on power, strict separation of church and state), but then has presidents constantly referring to god and religion being a huge thing in politics
> I find it's better to not throw stones if you live in glass houses.
yes, quite
Just not when it's the EU?
And also, not when they're actually elected. Got it.
maybe you could point out where I said that
Please explain why the house of lords is ok but the EU commission is not.
If you're not in favour of the HoL maybe we should start there and not spend ages talking about an institution our country does not need to try to ruin anymore: since it left.
and since I now live within its borders, and it applies to me.
absolutely, once "continuity remain" ceases to be a threat to the UK political system
until that happens, I will continue to refute the misinformation of its supporters
I think that's ridiculous, though they don't affect much. Waste of money. Not really with the Monarchy, as they aren't affecting anything at all.
> but I feel confident making such a statement as anybody who has spent more than 20 minutes researching how the EU works would know that it's folly to say that they're "unelected authoritarians".
Why would you assume that? Because I am an immigrant? How progressive. FYI you're wrong. What a shock.
> the very idea of a united EU is the opposite of fascism
One fundamental characteristic of Fascism is the centralisation of power in the state, and control/partnership with the private sector (which acts both for itself and for the benefit of the state). This is core to the EU. The logical conclusion of the EU project is a larger, more powerful government. It can't move into a different direction.
Are you aware of the thread that you're into? You can't possibly be missing the irony, but it seems you are.
> The distance between Luxembourg and London is less than the distance between London and Glasgow..
"far away" can also mean culturally, and BTW I'm not in favour of London governing anything in Glasgow either.
But that wouldn't fit into your preconceptions, would it?
> but you're certainly misinformed.
Why would you assume I don't already know everything that you said? I know: because you might be a bit arrogant. That is very apparent.
Just so you know, you contradicted yourself: The EU commission is made of UNELECTED people. They are the ones who draft the laws. Being appointed by someone does not mean elected, it means precisely being unelected.
How silly does one have to be to try to twist the basic meaning of accountability in government?
Now, even if they had been elected directly, the people making laws, or voting on said laws, or influencing policy that affects my country were elected somewhere else.
Nobody outside a given sovereign body should have a say in anything policy-wise within it.
Not only did the treaty get rejected by some states that were allowed to vote on it, the fact that it is too far removed from citizens and their inadequate participation. In fact I would argue the treaty made it even more undemocratic. The influence of Kutcher compared to European individuals is not the only empirical evidence for that.
The parliamentary control is minimal and there is little overarching political discourse beyond the borders of the nation state. Language barriers are strong and that won't change in the foreseeable future. Until then the commission will run the circus.