Hey! On the Russians thread I was called a nazi.
Welcome to the club. People on this board have been calling me a Nazi, and my favorite "warmonger", for quite some time.
well arnt we the illustrious group! haha
The EU has got quite a few things wrong with it at the levels ranging from details up to quite serious. It is certainly in need of reform in several ways. It’s a big and easy target to hit if you want to criticise it, and much of the criticism – from different political quarters – is justified. Nonetheless, in my understanding it has done a lot of good not only in economic terms but (more often than not) also in terms of promoting and protecting democracy, political and personal freedom (European style, not USA style) and freedom of movement and of ensuring the separation of powers and the rule of law (Treaty of Lisbon). These last issues in particular tend to be taken for granted here nowadays, but that’s because the EU has fostered and enforced them so well! Just look at current trends in Poland and Hungary for example, and there are plenty of populist parties in the ‘west of Europe’ too who would be happy to take things the same way.
Other important benefits include environmental protection (although not enough), consumer protection, promotion of cultural exchange etc. etc. The EU also has a freely elected parliament. Realise that one of the worst wars in history, also taking place almost all over Europe, is still within living memory. If the EU goes, then we’re going to need something else to hold the countries of Europe together in a relatively benign (!!!) way, otherwise with the rise in nationalism and above all populism in many countries, in an increasingly ‘post-fact’ political and cultural environment, we in Europe could find ourselves in deep shit all over again. So I believe that as a bottom line, the EU is certainly more good than bad. Although, once again, it sure needs some reform.
hi Giles,
Thanks for the informed post. I would take issue with much of it, outlining below my reasons, but I appreciate your well thought out viewpoint.
Economic benefits.There is no doubt that the original role of the EU, to make trade within Europe easier was realized. Had the EU remained in this specific role, I would have been a big fan!
The free movement of people was linked to this idea, as was the single currency and all of these things were a success in my opinion. But it is in these ideas that the seeds of where the EU went wrong can be found.
Over time, as the EUs charter expanded the pressure on its economics was increased and the errors started to become visible.
The policies in place for economic prosperity, specifically the single currency and the amount of money certain member states have to pay into the organisation, have resulted in entire countries economies failing. Notably, we have seen Greece and Ireland require assistance because of the debt they have owed to the EU. These countries are not out of the water yet. Looking into the crisis in Greece is enlightening and quite shocking. In this regard the methodology of the EU is responsible for some major economic issues and major suffering for millions of real EU citizens.
But further when we look outside of the EU we start to see the problems with the concept of preferential internal trade. The Member states inside the EU are largely first world countries. When we begin to look at the impact in the third world we see the some of the knock on problems that this trade union has created. Often it is the poorest people in the world are the most effected by the EUs economic ideals.
The most notable and prominent issue is regarding the Common Agricultural Policy. This policy which accounts for nearly 50% of the EUs budget keeps the cost of agricultural goods inside the EU artificially low. This means that producers in developing countries either cannot compete, or get virtually nothing for their goods once import is taken into account.
This has an impact on the entire world.
Research cited by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) shows that African and Latin American countries are particularly affected by the CAP. A study last year from the University of Lausanne argued that the world as a whole would gain from the removal of the "most distortive CAP instruments, with Europe being the main beneficiary".
"The reallocation of resources within the economies across the world and corresponding terms of trade effects would increase world economic GDP and welfare by nearly €33bn – the European border protection (various import duties) elimination being the key contributing element," said the study
HumanitarianismConsidering the above, we can already say that from a humanitarian standpoint, the EU’s economic policies are causing suffering for a large amount of people in the the world outside of the EU.
But further, when it comes to the humanitarian work of the EU, it is important to realize that Europe on the whole had advanced humanitarian positions post WW2 and nations across the world decided to commit to the idea of peace with the formation of the UN. It is a slightly disingenuous argument to lay the humanitarian policies present in Europe, at the feet of the EU themselves. These policies are generally based on the positions of the EUs major players like the UK and Germany and larger the UN. The beginnings of them were evident even before the EU moved into this area. Further, we are talking about 'human rights' advances in predominantly 1st world countries who already lead the way in freedom and human rights. The real focus should be on raising the standards of those in developing nations.
One of the fears of the Remainers is that human rights policies will be lost when we leave the EU. However, the UK is already a leading light in humanitarian principles and policies and there would be no economic, humanitarian or political reason to reverse this.
Regarding democracy,This is perhaps the most contentious argument from both sides. In my experience most people don't know what powers the EU has and what powers member states retain. I have investigated this thoroughly however and was one of the primary motivators for me to vote to leave.
Firstly, lets deal with the apparently democratic part of the EU. MEPs can be voted into their positions by citizens of their member states, but these elections are all but silent in most instances. There is no coverage, no budget for the election race, and very little information afforded the populace of the EU on what the MEP will be doing when elected. But it is important to realise that the EU Commission and the EU Courts are not democratically elected. They are also not transparent with EU citizens on the creation and enactment of law within the EU maintaining a 'closed door' policy on many of the developments of EU's Laws and policies.
As such the main democratic problem lays with the Law & policy makers of the EU. EU Law supersedes UK law in all but 3 areas. 1) the Schengen agreement 2) the Single currency 3) Member state applications to join the EU, which the UK had power of Veto. When Graham questioned this at the time of the vote (by posting a radio host grilling some poor member of the public) I provided the facts from the EU themselves on their own website that confirms this. In all other laws, EU law superseded British law. Now, remainers say that we 'agree with 90% of policies the EU enacts'. This may well be the case, but the point is we have no choice for the other 10%.
This is present in order to maintain trade with the EU, all member states have to be on the same page. It is an understandable position. But this ultimately means that the vote of the British people to elect their governance, a core tenant of our society and the system to produce the most freedom, human rights, and good in the world, is null and void. This is an unavoidable conclusion for someone looking at the situation objectively.
Rise of nationalism, right wing groups and popularism.Far from keeping these idiots in check, unfortunately I lay this largely at the feet of the EU, their policies and the problems that they cause internally in member states.
Parties have sprung up across the continent, like UKIP here in the UK, that have gained massive ground using the express position of battling the EU as an organisation. We have seen close run calls in the UK, France, Poland, Italy, Greece ... where seemingly extreme political parties have gained a strong footing in the populace. I am convinced that this would not be possible if nations had remained individual or the EU had stuck to its original charter and stayed squarely in the lane of trade.
I freely admit that most of what these idiotic parties say is lies or extreme stretches of the truth. But we need to ask ourselves why their viewpoint resonates with, sometimes, huge proportions of the population.
The poorest people in these countries are seeing and feeling the effect of the EU on their family and friends. 10 years ago, these parties were essentially non existent and now they have massive followings. The question that pro-EU people need to ask themselves is 'Why?' What is it that these real people are feeling about the EU that is making them come out in droves.
I think I must caveat this by saying that, although I voted leave, I personally do not support the Position of parties like UKIP, and share very few of their views of course.
On security and defense.Luckily, post world wars, we had the United Nations as an organisation to keep War at bay across Europe. I do not believe the EU should be present as well as the UN for this purpose, and dont think that the EU can bring anything at all to the table when it comes to european defense and security, that the UN and NATO dont already bring.
Peacedog outlines a very clear argument for the unlikely event of inter European war again.
On Environmental protectionOnce again, there are processes in place outside the EU that individual nations subscribe too. I would argue that meetings like G8 are far more important and impactful for the Environment than the EU. Note that Germany and the UK are represented there individually and environmental policies are often a key aspect of the talks.
Further the common agricultural policy mentioned above is actually largely responsible for loss of biodiversity across Europe and the larger world. Addressing serious issues like this could be a brilliant first step the EU are missing when it comes to the environment.
On scientific collaborationThe best example of how the EU is not needed for scientific collaboration is CERN. The most celebrated scientific collaboration on the planet is not reliant on the EU at all. 22 individual countries pay into this project every year and include non EU members / associate members like Israel, India, Pakistan and Turkey. It is a true testament to what can be achieved when individual nations collaborate.
In general, i think that, had the EU stuck to being a trade organisation it could have been a good thing for Europe and the world. As it stands, the foray into law, political power, migration, currency, defence, etc ... results in a net negative impact on the world.
Many thanks.
Chris.