The good parts of the EU, are outweighed by the bad parts. And, because of recent events in two larger members, i.e. France and Germany, there might not even be an EU in the next few years.
The good parts include: various rights for citizens, scientific co-operation, protection of trademarks, travel across the EU, and a few other things.
The bad parts are numerous. There are a lot of non-elected bureaucrats with some very un-democratic ideas.
Take for example, the time when the Irish held a referendum about a proposed constitution for the EU. The voters rejected it, and so, the EU had to revise their proposals, as it had required unanimity from the member states.
What the EU did in response, was insert changes into a number of different existing treaties, and not proposing a new treaty containing all the changes that were desired. This was done with the intent of confusing voters as to what it was they were actually voting for. It was done so as to make discussing changes difficult and obscure. Because the bureaucrats see the citizens as an obstacle to the EU project.
"It is unpenetrable for the public"
"The latest brainwave is to preserve part of the innovations of the constitutional treaty, but hide them by breaking them up into several texts. The most innovative provisions would become simple amendments to the treaties of Maastricht and Nice. The technical improvements would be regrouped in a colourless, harmless treaty. The texts would be sent to national parliaments, which would vote separately. Thus public opinion would be led to adopt, without knowing it, the provisions that we dare not present directly. This process of 'dividing to ratify' is obviously unworthy of the challenge at stake. It may be a good magician's act. But it will confirm European citizens in the idea that the construction of Europe is organised behind their backs by lawyers and diplomats"
That's what French politician Valéry Giscard d'Estaing had to say about it.
As for another un-democratic example, take the Common Fisheries Policy.
"The original six Common Market members realized that four countries applying to join the Common Market at that time (Britain, Ireland, Denmark including Greenland, and Norway) would control the richest fishing grounds in the world. The original six therefore drew up Council Regulation 2141/70 giving all Members equal access to all fishing waters, even though the Treaty of Rome gave no authority to do this. This was adopted on the morning of 30 June 1970, a few hours before the applications to join were officially received. This ensured that the regulations became part of the acquis communautaire before the new members joined, obliging them to accept the regulation."
Changing the terms of an agreement. Yes. Quite. A bit like changing the Constitution of the United States after John Hancock and all had already signed it, without acknowledging that that would be an Amendment that would require a proper process, no ?
And then there's the effect that the Free Movement of People has, in the sense of perpetuating deprivation, and effectively legalising slavery.
What the free movement of people allows, is the creation of slums, inhabited by migrant workers paid poverty wages, which has the effect of suppressing incomes for native workers.
A slum property, with 6 migrant people sleeping in bunkbeds in a room intended for one, and those migrants are paid only just the legal minimum wage. Now, the migrants can afford to live like that, because their families live in other countries, and they can send money home to support their family.
The slums are owned by management companies, whose shareholders are often local employers, and the migrants have to pay rent, which finds its way to the employer, making those migrants effectively much cheaper to employ than a native worker who lives in their own house.
This is particularly noticeable in the case of agricultural workers, who live in a bunkhouse on the farm property.
A migrant farm worker, paid £250/week, and living in the bunkhouse and having to pay £50/week in accommodation and "employment agency" fees to the farm owner, effectively costs £200/week. The migrant can afford to send the bulk of that money abroad to support their family living elsewhere, where living costs are much cheaper.
A native worker, at the same pay rate, living off-site in their own house, costs £250/week. They're fundamentally more expensive to employ. And £250/week is not enough to run a house and support a family. At best, it is merely existing, not living.
What the free movement of people effectively allows, is for large industrial employers to preserve their investments in plant and machinery, by allowing them to bring in slaves from abroad to live in slums, so that the employer can benefit from low wage rates without having to move the industry into a lower-wage country.
A native worker cannot compete in those conditions, and it is unreasonable to expect them to do so.
And finally, Donald Trump has just this week effectively said that NATO is over. He's pretty much given Comrade Putin a free hand to invade the Baltic states and establish "facts on the ground", just like they did in Ukraine.
So, all over Europe, there's the creation of socio-economic situations that promote the extremists, with racial and religious tension, bolshevism and fascism both on the rise, and the Internet allows these groups to gain traction a lot quicker than ever before.
Good job everyone, it's like nothing was learned in the past 100 years.
There's also the question of yet another independence referendum in scotland, but i'll talk more about that later.
Author
Topic: So, how awesome was Brexit?!? (Read 5088 times)