Is the EU really such a good thing?

[shouldhavelistenedtom0ther]

I know that many people will tell me how naive I am and that I need a reality check. However, irrespective of how I 'voted' in the Referendum, I am now convinced that the European Union is not something to which I wish to belong.

I feel that (a) the Union offers a fallacy of equality between its member states. This is a fallacy that was made overt when Greece was in crisis three or four years ago and was 'threatened' with exclusion.
(b) There seems to be an insidious assumptions that because the Union was formed on the basis of creating peace between nations on a Post-War context, such peace is not possible without the constraints (and possibilities) afforded by the EU.
(c) If a member state decides to leave, then the impossibility of leaving without economic and social consequences to that member state have been made clear in the two years of negotiations surrounding Brexit.
(d) If (c), then issues of 'freedom' in its truest meaning are raised.
(e) There appears to be a great deal of unrest, Nationalism and disaffection for the Union in other member states and it is possible that the Union will divide or disintegrate in the near future.
(f) In a global economy and a world shrinking through technology, the idea of a united Europe seems outdated and misplaced.

I am not satisfied with the so called 'deal' that is being discussed/sold at the moment. However, I am becoming more and more convinced that the EU is something that has been miss-sold to a lot of nations.

AIBU to think leaving the EU is possibly the 'right' decision despite the inevitable economic consequences?

How could leaving the EU make my life better?

It probably won't, immediately. However, this country so desperately needs change. I was too young to vote in the first referendum (1975), but I am sure that, at that time, had I been a few years older, I would have voted to stay. The EEC was a very different organisation and offered the promise of new trading partners, a macro-structure or rights and protection and new 'friendships' to a nation steeped in economic decline and industrial unrest.

Yet, these promises have not been realised. Over the forty years of membership, the decline has continued and accelerated. In the community in which I live, traditional industries have disappeared and there has been no investment in newer industries; a disproportionate number of people (particularly young people) are unemployed and whatever rights people have are largely ignored. For example, three of the four jobs that I have are in the so called 'gig' economy which offers no rights at all to those who depend on work in that sector. Agencies offer zero-hours contracts, social housing is scarce and exists in the context of deprivation and rents in the private sector are completely out of reach for the majority of people.

There is a valid argument that these problems reflect policies introduced by the UK government, particularly with respect to its commitment to 'austerity', yet the decline and absence of opportunity has continued irrespective of membership to the EU and it is only the United Nations Convention on Human Rights that has criticised UK policy. The 'protection' offered by the EU has been nominal to the point of ridicule,

The 'change' I envisage is the 'kick up the backside' the UK government need to start listening to the people and focusing on what is wrong with this country. The 'change' equates to eliminating the wasted effort or rhetoric on 'fighting Britain's corner' in the EU (for the furtherance of political careers) and really, practically concentrating on addressing the social and economic problems in this country.
For me, my children (both unemployed and desperately seeking work) and my community, staying in the EU would mean no change, as it has for the last four decades. A move away from the EU could evoke a focus on investment in this country.
We could argue that, after withdrawal from the Union, 'austerity' will only increase, particularly for communities such as the one in which I live. Yet, it does not have to. The Referendum showed that the voice of 'the people' can be heard and acted upon. This can be channelled to help instigate a real and focused change. To do this, we need not only withdrawal from the EU but a radical change of government, but that is a different topic.

So no actual tangible reasons just a vague hope 'things will change'.

You list a number of reasons all of which are the direct responsibility of U.K. governments. It's not a 'can be argued' point - the points you make about deindustrialisation are the fault of Thatcherism.

This has not happened in other EU countries. This is not the fault of the EU.

Why kick the cat because the dog bit you?

Where did I say we should legislate to stop people reading things?

The point I'm making is that the standard of our ' news' papers is incredibly low.

The Sun and its associated websites have the highest readership for gods sake. It reaches an average of approximately 31.3 million individuals per month through both its print and digital formats. Followed by the equally toxic Mid-Daily Mail at around 29 million reads/ clicks.

Is front page headlines saying " Britain's fattest woman ate fridge and died" or " Why you must vote UKIP" or " Girl eats 4,000 washing up
Sponges" really the standard of journalism we want to aspire to?

I do think we should legislate, or in fact use the legislation we have against politicians who lie though. It's great that Boris Johnson is being used as an example and being prosecuted for misconduct in public office.

Politicians should be measured responsible statesmen or women with integrity. They should not say or do anything to misrepresent the facts and mislead the public. If politicians set higher standards perhaps the press would follow suit.

It is true, they may not be 'tangible reasons', however, in my circumstances, there are no 'tangible reasons' to stay. It is also correct that the problems I have referred to may not be grossly apparent in other EU countries (I do not really know if they are or not) and it is very true that these problems have accelerated through policies or inactivity from the UK government. Yet being a member of the EU has , in my opinion, not afforded us the 'protection' against these measures and has removed government focus from the disastrous situation here and placed it on some elusive idea of finding our position in 'Europe'.

Yes, I hope for change. At the moment it is a vague hope. Yet remaining in the EU offers no hope at all, however vague, for me or my children.

The EU was set up to benefit Germany and France. France is a basket case - see rioting this weekend. Macron and his wife in her ludicrously expensive clothes are part of the out of touch elite.

Merkel has presided over the rise of the anti Muslim parties.

Countries like Greece, etc have been treated really badly (and should never have been allowed in). Places like Romania also, all that has happened is that people are fleeing a very corrupt country and coming to the U.K. to work in low wage jobs.

The EU is corrupt and shown no desire to reform. Just see how nasty Junker and the others are.

We need to get out and re-organise the UK

the fault of Thatcherism.

Did you not notice 13 years of Labour rule under Brown/Blair then?? Or all the closures and redundancies (and striked) of the Labour government before Thatcher?

Labour are as much at fault as Thatcher. Before her, they backed the unions to oppose necessary change. After her, they didn't give a toss about ex-industrial towns and just concentrated on London-Centric policies to suit themselves and their friends.

Reading some posts It is clear that Brexit is a religion, and therefore it is also clear that we will leave the EU, regardless of how much damage it will do. Economic and otherwise.

People will believe what they want to believe.

There is another way of looking at and understanding the EU - but many people are not interested in this.

And FWIW, Junker is not nasty and does not do to us. He is a civil servant and we are a member state.

Anyway- even if what was said upthread were accurate ( which it isn't) since when is it right to judge a large economically beneficial institution by one individual who'll retire shortly?

After all do we judge Parliament by Rees Mogg? Perhaps we should.

Is the EU really a good thing

Yes
It enables frictionless trade in a market of 500 million by eliminating tariff and non tariff barriers
It introduces and oversees legislation concerning workers' rights and environmental protections, among other important issues
It uses its size and influence to negotiate free trade deals for its member states globally

^^This.

Brexit is an article of faith. Aspects of UK domestic policy, which have nothing to do with the EU, are cited as reasons for Brexit as the EU did nothing to stop them! You couldn’t make this stuff up!

The EU is a dinosaur! They need to start again with a better model and less ridiculous regulations!

To answer original OP, no.

It's kinda Iike Robbie Williams, I am resigned to never getting the appeal and keeping that opinion fairly private.

I think ( from my position of lowly ignorance) It's also a bit similar to Scottish nationalism. In that it is a matter of at what level you would like power / sovereignty ( thorny definition itself in these days of trans national corporations ) to be held. Cold, hard logic doesn't always come into it.
Maybe if it did we should just probably just opt for a world government run by the Chinese. Gets rid of that pesky public vote.

It appears that as always, what Brexit means is an individual interpretation.

"The 'change' I envisage is the 'kick up the backside' the UK government need to start listening to the people and focusing on what is wrong with this country"

That wasn't on the ballot, see brexit voters complain that people say they are stupid, but then you come out with stuff like this.

The people campaigning for Brexit, and those that back them used you as useful idiots. You won't get what you want. The description of Brexit as the loser vote is really accurate.

I worry about the suppression of news and information within the EU. Many non-EU websites now block EU based citizens from accessing them altogether because the EU has such oppressive heavy handed laws (GDPR) for the press that they refuse to put their sites in compliance with them. Many of these are not niche or disreputable organisations - they include the LA Times and Chicago Tribune. If people think the EU heavily censoring what we are allowed to know and read is not a problem, they are deluded.

I wouldn’t want to let facts get in the way of an argument, but this is a bit misleading isn’t it?

This video appeared on my social media feed -

It's worth a look. It's from 2 years ago but I think still holds true today.

The GDPR point is very misleading, the EU is not suppressing news, yet another one of the "facts" used by brexiters appears not to be fundamentally flawed.

Citing national interest and ‘what’s in it for me?’ is really missing the point.

I've spent a lot of time working and holidaying in mainland Europe. I realise that my anecdotal experience counts for nothing and less so since I have the temerity to dislike the EU on here - but .....

On the whole I have found people in mainland Europe way more Nationalistic and racist than here. People talk about Europe as some kind of paradise of harmony - certainly not in my experience of (mainly) France and Germany.

Why does the parliament have to move so often?

Why can't we stop charging VAT on Tampons?

www.womanandhome.com/life/news-entertainment/what-is-the-tampon-tax-why-do-we-pay-it-and-when-will-it-finally-be-scrapped-205638/

Regardless of whether you think the GDPR was extreme and went too far, that fact that a huge number of sites, including foreign newspapers across the political spectrum are still available to EU users disproves the censorship point.

Wonder what the Chicago Tribune would be doing with my data that would cause them to fall foul of the GDPR?

EU VAT rules were approved in October to stop the tampon tax.

The reason it had a tax on it in the first place was that VAT was already on sanitary products in 1973 when the UK joined, and the EU VAT rules are that you can't move something to 0 VAT when it has already had VAT on it.

A huge number of newspapers and other news sites have signed up to it too though.

Its not censorship because they aren't forcing these news companies not to report, they are choosing not to comply with regulations.

Conflating the issues does not help your argument.

What could the Chicago Tribune be doing with your data?

Ask Cambridge Analytica .

The GDPR reference about suppressing news is complete and utter nonsense.

1. The U.K. government had a choice about whether to adopt the GDPR. They chose to adopt the Data Protection Act 2018 with some modifications to the GDPR, which again they chose.

1. Because of the speed at which technology changes, any country that cares about individual rights at all needs to protect my and your rights over our personal data. The sole purpose is to protect people -not suppress information!

3. Why did our government choose to still adopt it, well either they do still have some residual respect for individual rights, or they wanted to simplify the regulatory environment for international business by mirroring our regulations with the carefully and slowly thought out EU protections.

It's hilarious quite frankly to accuse the EU of suppressing information. Throughout the last two years they have put impact assessments, updates on negotiations on the EU website and made regular open progress reports.

By contrast we have had impact assessments so secret that at one point they both did and didn't exist. Impact assessments so secret MPs could only see them in a guarded room. Impact assessments so secret MPs were only allowed timed visits if they surrendered their telephones.
Legal advices that are so secret only a couple of cabinet ministers were allowed to read numbered complies, the content of which are still being pursued by the opposition.

It's the EU and european newspapers that suppress information not us ?! Absurd.

@BorisBogtrotter

So the EU then.

Why does the parliament have to move so often at great expense?

"So the EU then."

The EU was responsible for us having a tax on sanitary products before we were in the EU?

Great expense? £150m a year, is nothing in fiscal terms.

Added to which, a lot of sites I use are now very much more open about what data they are keeping.

I should be surprised that people can believe such rubbish when the information that disproves it is right in front of their eyes, but at this point I’m really not.