Pros and Cons of EU membership

[Tycho Brahe]

Cons: Rupert Murdoch is against, and uses all his newspapers to campaign against it.

EU + Russia ~ 650 million. A supapowah.

Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Borachio]

EU + Maghreb Union = 591.5 million

 

[GoodSarmatian]

EU + Russia ~ 650 million. A supapowah.

Go away !
We don't need a country that's larger than Germany !

I think the "produces stupid laws" thing is semi-legit. Not that the EU produces that much more silly laws than your average national government, it's only that there are 27 governments who like to blame the EU for everything silly.

It's also a nice little trick to introduce and vote for unpopular laws in the EU and then blame 'Brussels' (which I think is doing a better job than 'Washington' btw).
The often cited standard banana and cucumber laws aren't really that stupid. Standardised shapes make packaging and transportation cheaper and more efficient, and no one is really banning non-standard fruit. Now the agricultural subsidies, that's the really silly stuff.

 

[Borachio]

I thought they'd done away with the agricultural subsidies. Now you get a subsidy just for owning land. Wish I owned some.

 

[Winner]

You sound a lot like Merkel now.

I am merely stating the facts. No single European nation state can stand up to the likes of the US, China, or Russia and deal with them on equal-to-equal basis. Europe as a whole can. If people of Europe want to have a say in how this planet is run, and I believe they do, they have to stick together, no matter what.

I as any man can waste my time arguing over details concerning how this unification is to be accomplished so that we don't sacrifice too much of what makes us diverse, but we shouldn't lose sight of this imperative.

 

[Veles]

Nevermind -.-

 

[Virote_Considon]

EU + Russia ~ 650 million. A supapowah.

I endorse this post. Add in the rest of the West Balkans, Moldovia+Transnistria, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia and Armenia+Artsakh (and maybe Kazakhstan if they want, too), and I definitely think that Australia's status as a Potential Superpower come 2050 will look considerably more bleak.

Yup.

Unite or be swept aside, that's Europe's choice. There is no middle ground, the age when small nation states had the power to influence events in the world of giants is over.

Also, this

Still desperate to be part of a superpower I see, well I really don't want to be part of one.
I'm not too fond of the things Great Britain gets upto now nevermind the things you'd have us doing.

You could always leave. The EU isn't the Soviet Union; there's no reason to stay while our power, prestige and living standards rise as we integrate, if you don't want to

Also, what would an elected accountable Europe "have us doing" that the current UK wouldn't?

Cons: Rupert Murdoch is against, and uses all his newspapers to campaign against it.

 

[Oruc]

You could always leave. The EU isn't the Soviet Union; there's no reason to stay while our power, prestige and living standards rise as we integrate, if you don't want to

I intend too, I'm just not made of money so it will take time, I will also need to learn another language thats also gonna take time.

Also, what would an elected accountable Europe "have us doing" that the current UK wouldn't?

yeah let's talk about impossible scenario's

 

[Virote_Considon]

Let's talk about impossible scenarios? Ok. Europe is not going to unite together into one federalised state. It's not going to have an elected, accountable governing body. It's going to break up instead. And the standards of living in Europe will totes rise as a result of that.

Impossible enough for you, or should I go scour the Daily Mail for more of their hilarious parodey headlines?

 

[JohannaK]

I thought they'd done away with the agricultural subsidies. Now you get a subsidy just for owning land. Wish I owned some.

Yeah, if only one could be the Duchess of Alba.

Relevent:

Link to video.

Also this is awesome. Where is the bit about working to keep Europe disunited? Where is that marvel about war with this nation against that, and that against this, etc...

 

[Oruc]

Let's talk about impossible scenarios? Ok. Europe is not going to unite together into one federalised state. It's not going to have an elected, accountable governing body. It's going to break up instead. And the standards of living in Europe will totes rise as a result of that.

Impossible enough for you, or should I go scour the Daily Mail for more of their hilarious parodey headlines?

That depends are you going to force me to read the daily mail.

 

[Farm Boy]

Now the agricultural subsidies, that's the really silly stuff.

Give me substance rather than a sentence if you don't mind. I'd be boggled if the average urban European is magnitudes more in touch with this particular industry than the average urban American. What subsidies are silly, how are they implemented, and why are they silly? Is it the goal of the subsidy, or is it the implementation? Curious.

 

[del62]

It the common agricultural policy, designed to keep farmers rich, french ones specifically, but others don't do badly out of it.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

I am merely stating the facts. No single European nation state can stand up to the likes of the US, China, or Russia and deal with them on equal-to-equal basis. Europe as a whole can. If people of Europe want to have a say in how this planet is run, and I believe they do, they have to stick together, no matter what.

I as any man can waste my time arguing over details concerning how this unification is to be accomplished so that we don't sacrifice too much of what makes us diverse, but we shouldn't lose sight of this imperative.

I agree with Winner completely on the value and importance of a united Europe, but I'd like to make a more particular point about the economics of a united Europe.

Whenever anyone in Europe proposes regulating the financial sector or raising taxes on the hyper-rich, the same arguments are always employed.
If we actually hold the City of London accountable to our laws and prosecute bankers for breaking laws and regulations, then they'll move their business to somewhere where they won't be held accountable for their actions and we'll lose the money we get from them.
If we increase taxes on those who earn huge amounts of money, they'll move somewhere where rates are lower.
If we refuse to hand billions of taxpayers money over to failed banks, investors will move their money to the countries that are willing to socialise private losses.

The division of Europe's economy is allowing the richest people in the world to play both sides against the middle. It's a race to the bottom. And this problem is only going to become more important as time goes on.

Countries all across the developed world have seen two trends going on for the past 50 years.

Inequality, the gap between rich and poor has moved ever upward. And government spending to try to address that growing imbalance has increased as well. All over the world, states have been implementing progressive taxation, using money gained from taxing the "winners" of the new world economy to help out the "losers", whether its the rich funding healthcare for the poor or London paying for urban regeneration in Manchester. And it still hasn't been enough.

The simple fact is, that the market polarises wealth. And the unprecedented breakneck pace of globalisation and technological progress are acting as multipliers to that trend.

Our society has long been built around the concept of an economic division between "capitalists", people who own things, and "workers", people who use what capitalists own in order to make money. But the balance of power in that system, which has always been slanted in favour of the capitalists, has been shifting.

Globalisation lets capitalists replace workers with cheaper workers. Workers who had the protection of a trade union can be replaced by workers who would be arrested or "disappeared" by the Chinese government for being members of a trade union.
Technological progress meanwhile allows capitalists to replace a factory of a thousand workers with a few dozen workers and some machines.

In the world of tomorrow (or even today, rather), redistribution of wealth will be an inevitable fact of life. Either the market will leave us with a society divided between the hyper-rich and the utterly destitute, or our governments will address the issue of the polarisation of wealth caused by the global market economy with an equal and opposite response to allow those who have not been born rich some sort of hope for the future.

Only a united Europe has the power to deal with these issues by imposing taxes and regulations on the hyper-rich and the banks, corporations and other tools that they use to advance themselves. A balkanised Europe such as we have now, where nation states fall over themselves to offer the most convenient means for the hyper-rich to advance themselves in the hopes that the handful of money they toss in the air will fall to THEM and not the other guy next door can never hope to address the growing issue of inequality and give normal, working people a hope for the future.

Together we stand, divided we fall.

Sorry for the length of the post.

 

[luiz]

Yup.

Unite or be swept aside, that's Europe's choice. There is no middle ground, the age when small nation states had the power to influence events in the world of giants is over.

But why do you want to be big and influential?

China is huge and mighty, Switzerland is small and irrelevant. Where would you rather live? Hell, even a rabid chinese nationalist ought to prefer Switzerland...

I think the EU is great in many regards (and as a tourist I love the Euro and curse the sterling and swiss franc), but I don't see the appeal of a super-state. I am from a huge federal state and I can say no good comes out of it.

 

[Lillefix]

But why do you want to be big and influential?

China is huge and mighty, Switzerland is small and irrelevant. Where would you rather live? Hell, even a rabid chinese nationalist ought to prefer Switzerland...

I think the EU is great in many regards (and as a tourist I love the Euro and curse the sterling and swiss franc), but I don't see the appeal of a super-state. I am from a huge federal state and I can say no good comes out of it.

Switzerland might not have looked like it does today, if all the other European countries hadn't been united the last decades. And who knows how the future will be for Switzerland, with or without a united Europe. It's not really easy to compare those two since Switzerland is protected by the EU in many ways. They don't live in a bubble.

 

[Leoreth]

Dammit! Wrong guess. Nvm.

(see, I was thinking you might be thinking of Greece and a domino effect.)

That's more of a monetary union thing which the EU is not (damn British media propaganda). But I really don't think it holds true there as well.

Cons: Rupert Murdoch is against, and uses all his newspapers to campaign against it.

Sounds more like a pro to me.

It's also a nice little trick to introduce and vote for unpopular laws in the EU and then blame 'Brussels' (which I think is doing a better job than 'Washington' btw).

More well-meaning bureaucrats, less lobbyists. Pick your poison.

The often cited standard banana and cucumber laws aren't really that stupid. Standardised shapes make packaging and transportation cheaper and more efficient, and no one is really banning non-standard fruit. Now the agricultural subsidies, that's the really silly stuff.

Agreed. It's really the wrong thing to spend half of the EU budget on, with so many more urgent projects to focus on (European energy grids, for example ...). Then you have the imbalance in subsidies that only favors large agricultural industries, and much less small family farming businesses. Who don't even get subsidized for producing anything, but only for working a certain area of land or keeping a certain number of cows. But that's probably for the better, considering that there's a worrying overproduction in the European agriculture sector that either leads to food being destroyed or sold cheaply to Africa, where it puts local farmers out of business (to give a quick rundown of the most common criticisms @Farmboy). In general, it's the attempt to keep the agricultural sector at a certain size (in percentage of the workforce) that it would never have anymore if the market would have had its way.

I am merely stating the facts. No single European nation state can stand up to the likes of the US, China, or Russia and deal with them on equal-to-equal basis. Europe as a whole can. If people of Europe want to have a say in how this planet is run, and I believe they do, they have to stick together, no matter what.

I as any man can waste my time arguing over details concerning how this unification is to be accomplished so that we don't sacrifice too much of what makes us diverse, but we shouldn't lose sight of this imperative.

I don't really disagree with this argument, but I can't hear it anymore, and I think it's emphasized too much. If it's the only reason to keep together, I don't really think I could support it anymore. The EU can't be just an association of countries that dislike or distrust each other but force themselves to work with the rest out of power calculations.

Switzerland might not have looked like it does today, if all the other European countries hadn't been united the last decades. And who knows how the future will be for Switzerland, with or without a united Europe. It's not really easy to compare those two since Switzerland is protected by the EU in many ways. They don't live in a bubble.

Yeah, Switzerland must come to terms that its neutrality paradigm is a thing of the past. In many aspects, Switzerland already is a de facto EU member.

 

[luiz]

You can change the comparison to Singapore vs China if you like. I don't see how the power and influence of the state is important for the citizens well-being.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Do you want to be like the countries he listed? Only USA has certain good aspects but those are being constantly eroded.

If you have such strong feelings about how awful life is in Germany or Britain your perspective/priorities might be a little out of tilt.

 

[bugwar]

Some other pros:

- Europe ends up having more say and power in the world politically
- Living standards & infrastructure improvements across the continent

Cons:

- Excessive Bureaucracy
- Since Norway hasn't joined yet, it looks like there is a penis on all EU issued money

You forgot that the pro of living standard and infrastructure improvements leads to the con of a debt death spiral. But what the hey, if it is good enough for Greece, why not the rest of you.