The EU is a political construct yet you promote the benefits of a stronger EU while deriding the political system.
>This private justice would ensure that the free market reigns, not the misguided whims of bureaucrats who like to make tyrannical regulatory laws in their quest for more political power.
> The EU provides considerable benefits for Europe, arguably the most important, but also the most invisible, being peace. World War II ended only 74 years ago. To be a little dramatic: As a German, I'll gladly pay bureaucracy for peace.
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.
> -in the grand scheme of things the EU really seems one of best governmental institutions for the "common people". At least relative to comparable institutions, it appears driven by an intention to do some good.
cherry picking the EU policies much? The EU has shown again and again they are completely incompetent to make a proper economic market in Europe, or even have semi-consistent regulations across the different borders.
> What are these politcal benefits? Security benefits, seams like the EU is more likly to cause war then to make it go away.
From what I understand, the primary purpose of the EU is politics and security. It was created by the survivors of WWI and WWII. They needed a way to prevent another European war, and the solution was to bind together into "ever closer union". It worked amazingly well -- one of the most successful acts of international relations I can think of -- war between EU states, who had been fighting each other for hundreds of years and had devastated the continent twice in the first half of the century, is now unthinkable. We were born with it and assume it, but from the perspective of 1945 and centuries before that, it's a miracle.
Another way to think of it: Why not have a democratic mechanism to decide common issues? Democracy is what we believe in, and the alternative is the anarchy of the strong abusing the weak.
> Name one important issue where the EU has reached a satisfactory agreement and results.
The ability to travel, reside, work anywhere I desire in the EU as a right that I can rely on instead of having to ask for permission. The fact that I could marry another EU citizen from another country without having to ask for permission. That we have no extra paperwork related to that, even with a child. I still remember passport checks at the border.
Last but not least: 75 years of peace in Europe. Making the arch enemies of France and Germany friends.
Not all is good about the EU, it suffers from large deficiencies, but it has also brought great successes.
> What the EU is trying to do has been done in the past and it has failed.
First, If we would never try what in the past has failed then we would be really in a very stagnant state. Second, the EU has not failed, the EU is still the main reason for the prosperity most of its members have gained and still continue to gain after WWII. That it has had some backlashes recently does not mean at all that it has failed.
> The EU is not necessary for free trade.
It is not. It is however necessary for a internal economic market that guarantees the free flow of capital and labor, which is much wider/different in scope than free trade. Free trade can be arranged with a few trade treaties in neo liberal style.
> I think it's very easy to take the benefits of the EU and our resulting prosperity for granted. We need to actually have some power in the US-EU relationship, and the only way is to combine further.
You opinion is that the EU is good because the EU is good. You want the United states of Europe. I don't.
France, Germany, the Northern European countries were wealthy before the EU became the EU as we know it today.
> I don't know what that will look like, but I'd like Europe to be able to chart its own course. We know what happens to nations that are at the mercy of countries more powerful.
Yes, Europe, not the EU. That's my point. You can have Europe without the EU. You can have cooperation, trade, security without an overarching apparatus like the EU.
Not really. It works in some cases but globally you have laws that are not applied in countries because it is how it works.
I am not an economist and would love to see hard numbers about how the EU in its current constitution is better than having the core members alone.
I am in France and see that we are a net payer which does not make me happy. Not because we pay, but rather because how countries that receive this money use it.
I'll agree that for a large subset (France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, in particular) the EU has indeed been a successful experiment. It was also successful for the UK until they deluded themselves into leaving.
And if the EU decided to either (a) not expand as widely as possible or (b) not try to morph into a Federal Government of Europe, it would probably remain successful indefinitely. For now the EU has been established for a blink of an eye, relatively. Only time will tell how successful they can be in the long term.
> Just be glad that the EU's been relatively benign so far.
The creation of free movement of people, goods, services and capital across 28 States and creating a common currency used by many of them is arguably not “benign”.
For avoidance of doubt I’m in no way expressing an opinion on the merits of these - simply that it is not benign in the sense of having done nothing.
>for the simple reason that the EU was meant to be first and foremost an economical Union/treaty area, not a political one
The EU was always meant to be a political union. The economical elements were introduced first because they're more palatable.
It's an argument I often see repeated from people living in countries where the EU for sold as a trade tool (for example the Netherlands) when it was simply not the case.
> the EU should focus on actually making the EU work well.
The EU works pretty well. Just last week one of my Romanian work colleagues paid an Irish company (Ryanair) only $80 euros for a 2-person airplane trip to another European capital (Rome). All that would not have been possible without all of us being in the EU. For comparison, just look at how crazy expensive airfares are in the States for similar flights. And I could find other, numberless examples from the day to day life with which people have accustomed themselves, they have started to see them as granted, but which would have not been possible without the EU. UK's decision is sheer idiocy.
Obviously, yes.
reply