3 ms·
At the end of the day, the EU as it is is something that was shoved onto the people of Europe by big business, bureaucrats, Eurocrats etc. Working people feel
by pastProlog 10y ago
At the end of the day, the EU as it is is something that was shoved onto the people of Europe by big business, bureaucrats, Eurocrats etc. Working people feel all the negative impact of open borders and so-called "free trade", and the 1% gets all the gains from it. The mass of people barely feel they have any control over the Parliament of the UK, never mind the even more remote government in Brussels.
Many see the EU as constituted as something concocted by bureaucrats in business and government, for their own ends, a view which I think is correct. So the UK or Greece and the like being fed up with the EU should come as no surprise.
I think the EU as organized is a bad idea. I don't think European integration is a bad idea, but it was done without much consultation of the populace of Europe, and things like this are the result.
In the US, the popular candidates with mass rallies bucking against their party establishments have been Trump and Sanders, although Sanders was pushed aside for the establishment candidate with the help of superdelegates etc. Congressional job ratings for 2016 fluctuated between 13% to 18% approval, 75-84% disapproval. The average American feels alienated from Washington DC because Washington DC is unresponsive to the desires of the average American. The situation is not dissimilar from Europe.
- DanBC 10y ago> Working people feel all the negative impact of open borders and so-called "free trade", and the 1% gets all the gains from it. How does the 1% gain from the Working Time Directive?
- ppereira 10y agoPlease don't cherry pick an (unmentioned) directive in a one-line rebuttal; try to challenge the comment's core arguments.
- tonyedgecombe 10y agoActually the working time directive is right at the core of what the leave campaigners disliked about the EU.
- HillaryBriss 10y ago> Sanders was pushed aside for the establishment candidate with the help of super delegates When I google "sanders delegate total" I see a nice Google page showing that Clinton actually has a higher total of plain old regular delegates than Sanders has. It seems like Clinton just simply got more support from the electorate than Sanders did. I don't think the "super delegate explanation" can be invoked to explain the loss here. Sanders did a fantastic job as a non-establishment, grass-roots candidate. He came very very close to pushing Clinton aside. So close. But ... not ... quite...