Should the EU dissolve?

[Deleted]

No, I'd say reformation and addressing the issues countries are having would be the first step.



Acting as if America "saved" Europe...how original!

the EU wont reform. they made that clear with their attempt at negotiating with the UK pre vote. the whole thing needs to crash down and be rebuilt with less bureaucracy.

they need to start again and make it very clear that the EU is all about political unification. aka a united states of Europe. they also need to focus on the massive inequality across member nations and stop this ridiculous expansion they keep doing.

the main issue for me, is that they constantly hide their true goals.

you want an USE, fine. but come out and say it. and dont then get pissy when other countries don't align with your view on how things should be done

- - - Updated - - -

@OP
NO!
EU will be even stronger, Brexit show only that every EU citizen should be better educated about what EU is, some informative campaigns etc.

Also brexit dont even prove that EU is collapsing, it prove only brits stupidity:
http://fortune.com/2016/06/24/brexit-google-trends/

Lets see how many change minds in second referendum if this ever happen.

if ppl are uneducated bout the EU, that blame falls squarely on their shoulders. they made no attempt during the ref campaigns to make themselves be heard. instead we have UK politicians throwing doomsday and bullshit all over the walls.

also, people googling what will happen of we leave the EU is fairly standard given a lot of people voted remain and never even considered that they might lose

[Deleted]

I do have to say, it's quite funny watching people who talk about how nationalism is bad then go on to say bad things about nations that didn't join the EU(or left) as if members of the EU are better. Kind of reeks of the type of nationalism that leads to war.

Because we mostly are better.

Like I mentioned earlier, it's understandable that Norway and Iceland doesn't want to join. Switzerland's reasons for not joining are mostly cultural, fair enough.

Britain is a whole other issue. The outcome of the referendum was based on pure stupidity. There's no other way of describing it. The people who benefitted the most from the EU were the same people who voted out. Experts on subject matters were ignored by the British public. No one on the Leave-side had presented any kind of plan of what would happen after Britain left. People who didn't even know what the EU was made a decisive decision that will affect the UK for years to come - negatively. And Britain was a member of the EU! The argument that "Britain will do better than the EU than EU will do without Britain" was not only highly anti-intellectual, but incredibly egoistic. But those were one of the leading arguments on the Leave-side! Yes, the EU is better.

[Deleted]

Because we mostly are better.

Like I mentioned earlier, it's understandable that Norway and Iceland doesn't want to join. Switzerland's reasons for not joining are mostly cultural, fair enough.

Britain is a whole other issue. The outcome of the referendum was based on pure stupidity. There's no other way of describing it. The people who benefitted the most from the EU were the same people who voted out. Experts on subject matters were ignored by the British public. No one on the Leave-side had presented any kind of plan of what would happen after Britain left. People who didn't even know what the EU was made a decisive decision that will affect the UK for years to come - negatively. And Britain was a member of the EU! The argument that "Britain will do better than the EU than EU will do without Britain" was not only highly anti-intellectual, but incredibly egoistic. But those were one of the leading arguments on the Leave-side! Yes, the EU is better.

well.. we havnt left yet, and more to the point, its the job of the government to have the plan. not those campaigning. The fact that the government as an entity had no plan is what people should be concerned with. Not the fact that a bunch of MPs didnt have one. Its not the job of those campaigning to have the plan, especially when the Prime minister and the chancellor are on the remain side

[Deleted]

The anti EU argument is usually a very flawed argument and based on lackluster facts. Sure there's some benefits with being on your own, but the loss far outweights the win when you dwell into the numbers and everything going on behind the scenes. Basically it's rose tinted glasses you're experiencing.

And the most important reason as to why it's a bad idea to leave the EU is that you put yourself in a position where you still have to agree with their policy while having no impact on the decisions made. In all fairness though, I can understand why some dislike the EU but their arguments are usually aimed at one of two thing, immigration or they blame their own politicians missguided policies on the EU. Which leads to a circle of stupidity with no real ground to stand on. Just like the UK referendrum.

[Independent voter]

Hmmmm, another Jaylock thread.

[Deleted]

well.. we havnt left yet, and more to the point, its the job of the government to have the plan. not those campaigning. The fact that the government as an entity had no plan is what people should be concerned with. Not the fact that a bunch of MPs didnt have one. Its not the job of those campaigning to have the plan, especially when the Prime minister and the chancellor are on the remain side

Nobody campaigning have a responsibility obviously. That doesn't make it less stupid to vote for them, because you don't have any idea how they are going to handle what happens after they win. Just look what happened! Boris decides not to run as prime minister because - surprise - he has no plan, and has everything to lose. Nigel resigning because now he's done his job, and no way he's going to take responsibility for what happens if Britain leaves. Hell, the most likely successor of Cameron is in the Remain-camp. What does that say about the Leave-campaign?

[Noradin]

the EU wont reform. they made that clear with their attempt at negotiating with the UK pre vote.

Your definition of "reform" seems to be "become a colony of the Great British Empire".

[Tinch]

Nobody campaigning have a responsibility obviously. That doesn't make it less stupid to vote for them, because you don't have any idea how they are going to handle what happens after they win. Just look what happened! Boris decides not to run as prime minister because - surprise - he has no plan, and has everything to lose. Nigel resigning because now he's done his job, and no way he's going to take responsibility for what happens if Britain leaves. Hell, the most likely successor of Cameron is in the Remain-camp. What does that say about the Leave-campaign?

That's the thing, people weren't voting for individuals, it was the principle of whether you want to remain in the EU or not. This decision will potentially outlast any current politician, whether you like them or not shouldn't have had any bearing on someone's vote.

I wouldn't support many of the leave campaigners, but it wasn't about whether I liked them or not, just as you can't say everyone who voted remain supports Tony Blair or Anjem Choudary.

- - - Updated - - -

Your definition of "reform" seems to be "become a colony of the Great British Empire".

More exaggerated nonsense.

[Noradin]

More exaggerated nonsense.

How so?
The poster has expressed several times that he equates reforms with meeting the UKs demands for undeserved concessions.

Or was that supposed to be a self-referencing sentence?

[Halyon]

No, no it should not.

[Deleted]

How so?
The poster has expressed several times that he equates reforms with meeting the UKs demands for undeserved concessions.

Or was that supposed to be a self-referencing sentence?

several times? thats interesting given ive only responded once in like the last 2 weeks.

It was also exaggerated nonsense. your instant response for someone calling for reform and the fact that the EU have been unwilling to is to equate it to British colonialism.

[Kallisto]

the EU wont reform. they made that clear with their attempt at negotiating with the UK pre vote. the whole thing needs to crash down and be rebuilt with less bureaucracy.

they need to start again and make it very clear that the EU is all about political unification. aka a united states of Europe. they also need to focus on the massive inequality across member nations and stop this ridiculous expansion they keep doing.

the main issue for me, is that they constantly hide their true goals.

you want an USE, fine. but come out and say it. and dont then get pissy when other countries don't align with your view on how things should be done

That's not what he said at all. He said "Don't expect more concessions." which was imediately mistranslated with an agenda by the out groups.

if ppl are uneducated bout the EU, that blame falls squarely on their shoulders. they made no attempt during the ref campaigns to make themselves be heard. instead we have UK politicians throwing doomsday and bullshit all over the walls.

also, people googling what will happen of we leave the EU is fairly standard given a lot of people voted remain and never even considered that they might lose

No they did make themselves be heard. Through themselves, the experts. But certain people are just unwilling to hear (Horse, water, drink). Also if people are ignorant of a subject the only one to blame is themselves. There is 24 hours in a day. Plenty of time to work, relax and educate yourself. People should always be educating themselves on well everything.

[Deleted]

That's the thing, people weren't voting for individuals, it was the principle of whether you want to remain in the EU or not. This decision will potentially outlast any current politician, whether you like them or not shouldn't have had any bearing on someone's vote.

I wouldn't support many of the leave campaigners, but it wasn't about whether I liked them or not, just as you can't say everyone who voted remain supports Tony Blair or Anjem Choudary.

We're not talking about individuals here, except for making an example of how hollow the arguments for leaving the EU are. Again, these people have abandoned the ship because there is no future outside the EU that is in any way better than the status quo, as shitty as the status quo might be, and these people knew it. Again, what does it say about the prospects of the UK in the future when the people who led the charge for "independence" quit less than 2 weeks after the referendum's results came in positive? Reflect on that.

Speaking of "independence", let's talk about that. The principle of leaving the EU was to regain independence from Brussels, yet that is as hollow of an argument as it gets because, let's be honest here, what is defined as "regaining independence from Brussels"? Will you "regain independence from Brussels" by leaving the EU? How will that "principle" make life better for the average British citizen?

Here are the answers, in order: 1) Regaining independence from Brussels = complete mumbo jumbo only used in order to stir up nationalist feelings and win a referendum, 2) No, at best you'll be a de facto vassal, 3) It won't.

So much for voting for the "principle".

[Wikiy]

Here are the answers, in order: 1) Regaining independence from Brussels = complete mumbo jumbo only used in order to stir up nationalist feelings and win a referendum, 2) No, at best you'll be a de facto vassal, 3) It won't.

This is the "amusing" thing about the whole situation... "Now" that the UK is no longer a part of the EU, it wont have a special position from which to negotiate good terms in certain deals for itself. At the same time, the EU is a huge market with quite a lot of great programmes like Erasmus, Horizon 2020, etc. etc., and the UK will want to participate in most of those. They will also get absolutely no say about anything when it comes to these programmes and now they work. Plus, the EU will simply not let the UK have access to certain of these programmes/have a EU-member-like status in the single market, without it also adhering to things like the free movement of peoples. Having preferential treatment is what Switzerland tried and completely failed at because they were immediately cut access to EU research grants and the like, realized how stupid they were being and agreed to allow full movement of EU peoples in its own country.

If you think the UK is in a much better position than Switzerland - think again. The EU is still 4 times as large a market as the UK.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Nobody campaigning have a responsibility obviously. That doesn't make it less stupid to vote for them, because you don't have any idea how they are going to handle what happens after they win. Just look what happened! Boris decides not to run as prime minister because - surprise - he has no plan, and has everything to lose. Nigel resigning because now he's done his job, and no way he's going to take responsibility for what happens if Britain leaves. Hell, the most likely successor of Cameron is in the Remain-camp. What does that say about the Leave-campaign?

Generally I agree, but in this particular case the one who offered the vote was someone favoring the remain option. If you have nothing to do with the referendum and the people voted so overwhelmingly stupid, then I can see how resigning with "fuck off you morons" is justified. If you are the instigator of the whole mess though, yeah.. no.

Edit: Not to mention he didn't exactly give an arm to make his position clear or popular among the population. He just watched as the sparks cast by the leave campaign flew..

[Deleted]

Generally I agree, but in this particular case the one who offered the vote was someone favoring the remain option. If you have nothing to do with the referendum and the people voted so overwhelmingly stupid, then I can see how resigning with "fuck off you morons" is justified. If you are the instigator of the whole mess though, yeah.. no.

Edit: Not to mention he didn't exactly give an arm to make his position clear or popular among the population. He just watched as the sparks cast by the leave campaign flew..

Boris Johnson was forced out of the political game because Michael gove said he would support Boris, but he then backstabbed him and Michael decided he was running for PM instead.

Michael is now seen as the worst guy in history as most people wanted Boris to be PM

[Cosmic Janitor]

Boris Johnson was forced out of the political game because Michael gove said he would support Boris, but he then backstabbed him and Michael decided he was running for PM instead.

I was talking about Cameron. He instigated the whole mess, he should have had a plan. In all the schadenfreude over the leave campaign imploding currently, we shouldn't forget who started it because of a rather pathetic power play.

[Tijuana]

Given all the problems that the EU brings to each member country (loss of sovereignty), do you think the EU should dissolve as a policy setting organization, but keep the Euro so that each country doesn't have to have different exchange rates between them?

Great Britain is a prime example of why this is a legitimate question. Them leaving the EU proves that at least in some part, the EU doesn't work as a policy setting organization.

Each member country gives up certain rights to agree to the policies set by the European Union, and I think this is a HUGE negative.

Or, should the European Union become a large country, and each member country would be a state within that country no longer identified as a country? This would mean each country would have to give up even more rights and identity as a country to become a part of one large centrally ruled country.

Thoughts?

I think the core idea is flawed. Greece proved that. Nations need the right to manage their own currencies and budgets. Having different people in charge of the currency and taxing/spending simply does not work. If the EU nations are going to use the same currency, they need to have, at a minimum, some taxing and spending standards.

[Valech]

yes. we should throw economically weaker countries into havoc.

[psyquest]

Given all the problems that the EU brings to each member country (loss of sovereignty), do you think the EU should dissolve as a policy setting organization, but keep the Euro so that each country doesn't have to have different exchange rates between them?

Great Britain is a prime example of why this is a legitimate question. Them leaving the EU proves that at least in some part, the EU doesn't work as a policy setting organization.

Each member country gives up certain rights to agree to the policies set by the European Union, and I think this is a HUGE negative.

Or, should the European Union become a large country, and each member country would be a state within that country no longer identified as a country? This would mean each country would have to give up even more rights and identity as a country to become a part of one large centrally ruled country.

Thoughts?

Given all the problems that the US brings to the world (wars and famine), do you think the US should dissolve as a policy setting organization,whatever that means, but keep the dollars so that each state doesn't have to have different exchange rates and currency between them?

California is a prime example of why this is a legitimate question. Them wanting to leave the US proves that at least in some part, the US doesn't work as a policy setting organization or country

Each US state gives up certain rights to agree to the policies set by the USA, and I think this is a HUGE negative.

Or, should north America become a large country, and each member state would be a state within that huge country no longer identified as a country but as a state? This would mean each state would have to give up even more rights and identity as a state to become a part of one large centrally ruled country with Canada bringing a more balanced ,intelligent ,civilised and godly view.

Thoughts?