Brexit Thread

[Beskar]

I am clearly known for my totalitarian censorship of pro-speech. Today, I permanently banned two members, one for writing he could provide plumbing services in Pakistan for a reasonable price, and the other apparently knew of some "hot kinky ladies" in my local area which were apparently waiting for "me".

Jesting aside, hope is necessary in every day living. It is the enthusiasm which makes us get up each morning, and actually try to make something out of life. In a way, you are a believer of hope Lizardo. You come in threads like these, and you attempt to inform us in your special way, hoping we are convinced and swayed by your arguments, trying to make a difference in the world.

Will the EU reform? The fact is, the desire for reform needs political capital. People who are on the gravy train do not want to rock the boat, unless they need to. There are many factors against EU reform, and ultimately, the biggest one is also its biggest critic. Nationalism.

The EU is a construct which is intended to be a partnership between countries towards achieving several important and reaching political and economical goals. It is this construct and framework of unity which can bring about these changes more effectively and more adequately. But the thing is with partnerships, and teams, is that not everyone is equal. This is fundamentally a good thing, as diversity, the adoption of different roles by the partners, can make things work more effective (see Belbin). However, a big hurdle to this co-operation is national interest.

One criticism, as you mentioned yourself, are the EU commision. But what is the commission and who are these evil unelected commissioners.
Who appoints these commissioners?: It is the nations themselves of course. So the UK has a commissioner, so does France, so does Germany... all 28 members in fact.
What do they do?: They represent the national interest of the individual member states within the European Union.
What happens if we get rid of them?: National governments will have a decreased say in how the EU is run.
Why aren't they elected?: They could be, but our governments choose not to.
Why?: Because the government wants increased control of the affairs of the EU. This is part of why Cameron and Merkel meet up for coffee, to discuss their EU ambitions and plans.

Now, as you commented Lizardo. You want countries to leave the evil EU, because of National Interest. Citing the institutions built for National Interest as the reason for leaving. But if you had to stay and increase your National Interest in the EU, you would empower the commissioners.

It is this oxymoronic, paradoxical, self-fulfilling arrangement, where there is a distinct element of people who want to promote national interest within and out the EU.

Want to know what the solution is to this? It is Fragony's favourite cited phrase. "Ever closer union". By becoming closer, the EU would disband and eliminate the commission, then it could give rise to an EU with a democratic mandate and supported by the European people.

Furunculus said it once on here: "I dislike the EU, as it is not democratic. But I do not want to become democratic, as it would then have a democratic mandate which represents us, thus we cannot leave." It is a nationalist leaning rhetoric where the biggest barriers to democratic reform are those who with national interests, and it is the same people who criticise the EU for not reforming, whilst they are the barrier which prevents it.

The European Union needs reform, there is no doubt about it. I can start listing them off. Want to hear a couple?
European-wide minimum wage. Fix the disparity in Europe, bring about fair compensation for peoples work. This would prevent internal migration of people, because either in the West or the East, doing Job A will get you Pay A, instead of the mismatch system.
Increase of Democracy within the EU system, and increased powers for a reformed European Parliament. An elected European President. Because Democratic mandate is important and should not be forgotten.
Increased accountability. Obvious reasons.

Of course, being sensible is a lost art.

We could vote out of the EU, citing NAFTA, when Britain is American's lapdog and will sign the dotted line as soon as we leave anyway, with no discussion or debate. At least the EU challenged the treaty and kept pushing for amendments, which it is why it is taking so long, opposed to being signed in 2012. Thing is, Europe has protected Britain from itself. There is a distinct fear that the supposed "freedom" will led to some very significant disasters in policies.


Side-Note:
This was brought up by someone voting out -
"We are not a proper partnership anyway, if we were, and if we looked out for eachother. We would go in and save Greece, eliminating their loans and help rebuild the country."
Later on -
"I don't care about the other european nations, we won't want to give them any money or bail them out"

So... doomed if you do, doomed if you don't? Rational.