3 ms·

As a Welsh secessionist, I can't for the life of me square the idea of wanting to leave union that for all its massive faults is at least something you can unde

As a Welsh secessionist, I can't for the life of me square the idea of wanting to leave union that for all its massive faults is at least something you can understand and engage with, to replace that by joining a union that is distant, more artificial and certainly more vague and impenetrable to the common person. Why would you leave economic and political dominance by Westminster with no control over the economics of your borders (the capital flows, the tax loopholes, the destabilising and exploitative 'investment', the primacy of trade which leads to the all encompassing trade for trade's sake, the depopulation of youth) to instead give that control up to Frankfurt and Brussels? I think we (Scotland, and Wales) should define what we want to do first and why and where we want to go / want to be. Then in some cases trade agreements will be useful to promote these goals. but they have to be tightly controlled and compensated for.

brnt 4y ago
Despite the image that British media have carefully crafted, Brussels (and Frankfurt?) are far more democratic and competent governments than Westminster. It is only vague because British government has had a deliberate policy of keeping that so (you should read some memoirs of other-EU diplomats on the issue). Convolution of governing is such a British tradition, that unfortunately you believe it is both everywhere and the particular strain present in Westminster is the least worst of all.
- gghhzzgghhzz 4y ago
  I think we should all have a healthy scepticism for leaders and politicians. We do tend to have that for those in Westminster. The idea that politicians in Brussels don't have vested interests, are not the result of heavy lobbying, are not seeking re-election, are not corruptible or of questionable moral standing is rather dangerous. There seems to be a heavy degree of Blue-Washing. Take a politician like Donald Tusk for example, someone who would be in the fringes of the socially conservative right in the UK, yet is venerated during the Brexit discussions. Or Micheal Barnier, again venerated amongst so called liberals in the UK, yet now calling for an immigration ban in France. On the economic side. Yes everything is very convoluted and remote for a reason. Power structures always get taken over by the interests of capital. The idea that the EU / Euro / European central bank is any different is again rather dangerous. This is an institution with economic interests written into its constitution. The goal here is to drive down the costs of labour added with the maybe unintended or maybe intended consequence that the EU has spend 20 years dealing with the contradictions and artificial constraints on public spending of a currency that it has created, when it could have been using that time and effort to do something transformational, especially in the direction of green technology and energy.
  - brnt 4y ago
    > The idea that politicians in Brussels don't have vested interests, are not the result of heavy lobbying, are not seeking re-election, are not corruptible or of questionable moral standing is rather dangerous. That is why I never said anything of the sort. Let's start fresh, shall we?
xenadu02 4y ago
I find it hilarious that all of the anti-EU arguments are more or less the same as the arguments against the United States government. The states joining up to form a larger entity certainly took some power away from the individual states and removed local control but it seems to have worked out OK.
- gghhzzgghhzz 4y ago
  US has some of the highest levels of comparative inequality in the world. There are also areas that have been depopulated and others where basic services cannot keep up with the population (housing for example). but that aside, the US has broad political integration and economic integration and has a single demos. The EU is trying to impose economic integration without political integration (or at least without being honest with the scope of political integration) and that will never work. You can't have freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and labour over unequal economies without seriously compensating for it, both 'sides' of the transactions are damaged. Plus it doesn't have a single demos and I don't see how you can magic one into being. a more apt comparison would be to look at NAFTA. It increased trade, but at great overall cost to both sides.

brnt 4y ago

Despite the image that British media have carefully crafted, Brussels (and Frankfurt?) are far more democratic and competent governments than Westminster. It is only vague because British government has had a deliberate policy of keeping that so (you should read some memoirs of other-EU diplomats on the issue). Convolution of governing is such a British tradition, that unfortunately you believe it is both everywhere and the particular strain present in Westminster is the least worst of all.

gghhzzgghhzz 4y ago
I think we should all have a healthy scepticism for leaders and politicians. We do tend to have that for those in Westminster. The idea that politicians in Brussels don't have vested interests, are not the result of heavy lobbying, are not seeking re-election, are not corruptible or of questionable moral standing is rather dangerous. There seems to be a heavy degree of Blue-Washing. Take a politician like Donald Tusk for example, someone who would be in the fringes of the socially conservative right in the UK, yet is venerated during the Brexit discussions. Or Micheal Barnier, again venerated amongst so called liberals in the UK, yet now calling for an immigration ban in France. On the economic side. Yes everything is very convoluted and remote for a reason. Power structures always get taken over by the interests of capital. The idea that the EU / Euro / European central bank is any different is again rather dangerous. This is an institution with economic interests written into its constitution. The goal here is to drive down the costs of labour added with the maybe unintended or maybe intended consequence that the EU has spend 20 years dealing with the contradictions and artificial constraints on public spending of a currency that it has created, when it could have been using that time and effort to do something transformational, especially in the direction of green technology and energy.
- brnt 4y ago
  > The idea that politicians in Brussels don't have vested interests, are not the result of heavy lobbying, are not seeking re-election, are not corruptible or of questionable moral standing is rather dangerous. That is why I never said anything of the sort. Let's start fresh, shall we?

xenadu02 4y ago

I find it hilarious that all of the anti-EU arguments are more or less the same as the arguments against the United States government. The states joining up to form a larger entity certainly took some power away from the individual states and removed local control but it seems to have worked out OK.

gghhzzgghhzz 4y ago
US has some of the highest levels of comparative inequality in the world. There are also areas that have been depopulated and others where basic services cannot keep up with the population (housing for example). but that aside, the US has broad political integration and economic integration and has a single demos. The EU is trying to impose economic integration without political integration (or at least without being honest with the scope of political integration) and that will never work. You can't have freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and labour over unequal economies without seriously compensating for it, both 'sides' of the transactions are damaged. Plus it doesn't have a single demos and I don't see how you can magic one into being. a more apt comparison would be to look at NAFTA. It increased trade, but at great overall cost to both sides.