> The problem with the EU is that they now have the goal of becoming the United States of Europe and eliminating national soverignty in most senses of the word.

> The problem with the EU is that they now have the goal of becoming the United States of Europe and eliminating national soverignty in most senses of the word. [1] This isn't good or bad just many EU officials statements of their goals. [1] However, it is something relatively new and not what the EU started out to be when a lot of members joined up. [2] > If the EU had said from the beginning, "we want to create a United States of Europe" and the people in each new member country had democratically voted for that we wouldn't be having a lot of the problems we have right now. But people can democratically vote for it. You can elect your MEPs directly and you can elect the rest (council, etc) by voting in your national elections. Don't want the United States of Europe? Fair enough, vote for parties that oppose it. People are doing it. > But its an assault on freedom to try to accumulate central power while decimating local democratic processes, especially for all the member states who did not join under such pretences. That would be an assault on freedom if it was true, but it's not. If any, the EU reinforces democracy and enhances personal freedom. People rule the EU. > It makes the affronts even more egregious when you realize EU citizens have little democratic control over the the European Commission and European Council which accounts for 2/3 of the European legislative body. People have full control of it. Vote in your country for a party that will support your ideals in the EU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission - Formed by one member of each state (each Commissioner is first nominated by their member state in consultation with the Commission President, although the President holds little practical power to force a change in candidate). http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/ http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/ - The members of the European Council are the heads of state or government of the 28 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission. > Whether you're for a United States of Europe or not these are issues we need to address if we want to make real progress in the EU. Happy to see people bringing up these topics, I however think you might be misinformed. The EU is one of the most democratic organisations out there and, if actions speak louder than words, the EU has got a very decent track of upholding people's rights against lobbies and big corps. > IMHO attempting to punish the UK by refusing to cooperate with them when its mutually beneficial to both parties is not a route I'd like to see us take. In general economic terms, it will almost always be in the EUs interest to work with the UK and not against them. The EU enjoys the benefits of many laws in the USA and elsewhere, for instance that a subscriber to a service in California can use that service in Georgia. Still, it would be absurd to assume the EU should pay a price to help enforce that law. No one is trying to punish the UK, but I think op might have worded his point rather confusingly. The UK is of course free to copy and paste the EU law. Anyone can do it (and I hope they do) - there is however a problem: How do you enforce it? Is the UK strong enough of a market to force Netflix or Amazon to change? Should the EU press Netflix to include the UK in the no-borders streaming zone? If you think the answer to this latest question is yes, then the UK has to contribute. And, by the way, how different is your "refusing to cooperate" than op's "refusing to contribute to the recurring enforcement costs" - should contribution with the UK be free? Can you have your cake and eat it?