> I'd wager most not just don't know what it offers but don't even really know what exactly is bad about it.
This is a good reason why the EU should fail, and why people voted for Brexit, which will hopefully go some way to making that happen.
To the average citizen, the EU is a gargantuan bureaucracy, burning through enormous sums of money, whose main concern seems to be churning out reams of incomprehensible regulations. It also has some courts that overrule our national governments from time to time.
I like the concept of a more integrated Europe, but the EU is just the first attempt at it.
To the average citizen the majority of regulation is incomprehensible because it deals with things they never have to deal with. I care that the food I buy is safe not precisely how regulation and standardization makes it so or that I personally understand it. The entire point of representative democracy is that I don't have to.
The vast amount of "regulation" is simply standardization to simplify trade in the single market. The industries affected themselves tend to want it even while people make fun of it in the media.
The amount of money invested in the EU is really not all that enormous, besides it's not like it disappears in a black hole. It seems like any significant infrastructure project in the EU gets at least some EU funding. Especially Eastern Europe has benefitted greatly from that and we all benefit as the East catches up with the rest of Europe.
In any case you can't just scrap the EU and start fresh and instantly come up with the perfect solution. This is not how politics and policy works or has ever worked. Any non-trivial system is built iteratively through incremental improvement, especially large systems. A more integrated Europe is achieved by improving the EU not by replacing it with some fantasy that will never come to fruition.
> It seems to me that not many people realize just how highly the EU is valued in Germany across the political spectrum. People seem to severely underestimate what sacrifices Germany is willing to make in the context of Brexit to benefit the EU.
The perception of the EU as a German project — or experiment, if you will — was one of the factors leading people to vote for Brexit.
Isn't that quite scary for you? I don't think I'd every want to be part of a multinational organization that has unelected rulers, is attempting to build a military, and will give anyone leaving it a hard time.
That's an absurd state to be in and it's already a parody of itself.
The EU is not giving UK hard time. It is simply no longer willing to go above and beyond to appease them nor should it do so. If UK does not want to take part in responsibilities but would like to keep the benefits EU is not able to allow that. It is a simple fact that there are no satisfactory ways for UK to leave EU and it is not EU fault.
Most of EU rulers are democratically elected, at least no less than in most country-level governments.
I support federalisation of EU. Most of the issues with EU stem from not enough integration and overly nationalistic nonsense countries do to the detriment of everybody. Euro needs a reform that will introduce transfers to less wealthy states, UK blocking much needed finance reform to keep its criminal City afloat, different countries throwing everyone under the bus so they can protect their own reelection.
Any talk of "sovereignity" is goddamn laughable in this day and age, between the banks and trade agreemens and megacorps
Together the EU is the biggest economy, outside of it you are just a shitty country that is hungover on glory long past
>Most of EU rulers are democratically elected, at least no less than in most country-level governments.
"Most", need I say more?
> Most of the issues with EU stem from not enough integration and overly nationalistic nonsense countries do to the detriment of everybody
"Ok so what we're doing isn't working out but if you give us more money and power I swear it'll work guys! Just trust me and give up your currency, boarders, militaries, and legislative branches and don't worry this isn't sketchy at all"
> Euro needs a reform that will introduce transfers to less wealthy states
Ah so the EU is now a charity/Robin Hood organization. Not a government? Most government's aren't so selfless. I'd go so far as to say that no government can be as selfless.
> UK blocking much needed finance reform to keep its criminal City afloat
Criminal City?
> different countries throwing everyone under the bus so they can protect their own reelection.
That's what happens with all governments. It's not about the public, it's about maintaining power.
> Any talk of "sovereignity" is goddamn laughable in this day and age, between the banks and trade agreemens and megacorps
Would you have found it better for black people living in America during segregation to say "Any talk of "equality" is goddamn laughable in this day and age, between the government and the kkk and the racist people" or do you think it was right for them to fight to reverse the encroachment of their basic human rights?
I see Brexit as a means of fighting back against a relentless ruling class that has grown out of an apathy of the working class.
> Together the EU is the biggest economy, outside of it you are just a shitty country that is hungover on glory long past
I can't see a single economist predicting a good future for the EU. It all looks doom and gloom from here on out. I'd say that the countries that are the worst off would benifit the most from less trade regulations. Look at what China and India have become. "Super power by 2020" would be a great thing to hear about the eastern block but that will never be the case under EU's thumbs
>I see Brexit as a means of fighting back against a relentless ruling class that has grown out of an apathy of the working class.
What you did is you submitted yourself to whackjobs like May or Johnson who apparently think that advisory referendum made them supreme rulers that can just sidestep the parliament
Wonder why UK is talking about leaving EHRC if you want your human rights protected
Criminal City as in main export goods of UK: LIBOR fixing, tax evasion, money laundering, etc. After 2008 there were genuine attempts at reform, all succesfully cockblocked and watered down by UK
Everywhere there is doom and gloom, not just EU - the current financial system will collapse under the unbearable debt that is created ever quicker.
And the rise of China and India is exactly why small countries are irrelevant. Sure, you get to feel all important for a while, but since you don't really have much to offer to a giant they can just steamroll over you.
Thats what I don't get. You bitch and moan about how EU is evil and trying to destroy UK, for taking EU perks away and then you turn around and argue how evil and bad the EU is because it has nothing to offer...
> What you did is you submitted yourself to whackjobs like May or Johnson who apparently think that advisory referendum made them supreme rulers that can just sidestep the parliament
I'm not British so I've done nothing but what I see as an outsider is a parliament that feels it can entirely sidestep the wills of the public.
> Wonder why UK is talking about leaving EHRC if you want your human rights protected
We'll I'd assume it's to avoid foreign control over their domestic affairs. I don't think any country should be subject to the moral judgement of other nations and I would like to point out that the UK offers some of the best humanitarian protection to it's people. I'd call this point a bit of a non sequitur.
For instance, let's say I'm rich and I'm investing in a set of manufacturing companies. If I want to pull all of my money out of foreign markets and I state by pulling money from my off-shore cookie factories does this mean I hate cookies as a product? I don't necessarily feel that is the case especially if I still have investments in, or have future plans to invest in, domestic cookie production.
> Criminal City as in main export goods of UK: LIBOR fixing, tax evasion, money laundering, etc. After 2008 there were genuine attempts at reform, all succesfully cockblocked and watered down by UK
I've never head of this but I'd chalk this up as a job for Interpol if it's a set of people engaging in money laundering and tax evasion. This is again a non sequitur as every country has this. Switzerland, France, and other EU countries are if anything more guilty of this then the UK.
(Yes I know Switzerland isn't technically an EU country but it was a founding member of the EFTA so I'm counting it as they are still subject to trade sanctions that have never been levied from my understanding)
> And the rise of China and India is exactly why small countries are irrelevant. Sure, you get to feel all important for a while, but since you don't really have much to offer to a giant they can just steamroll over you.
You have a lot to offer. You're main point of attraction is different cultural backgrounds and different legal precedents. Many eastern block countries have the perfect storm of intelligent people, good universities, and a strong set of natural resource that they could turn from shabby to economic powerhouses overnight if they where allowed to engage in some practices that haven't been monopolized by the EU. One such example was the British fishing industry. [0]
> Thats what I don't get. You bitch and moan about how EU is evil and trying to destroy UK, for taking EU perks away and then you turn around and argue how evil and bad the EU is because it has nothing to offer...
I don't feel that I'm bitching and moaning. I feel that I'm presenting my opinions on the topic. I'm going to have to pick this apart bit by bit because there's a lot crammed into this one section.
> You bitch and moan about how EU is evil
I don't think it's evil. I've never said that and I don't think I ever will say that. It's the same way I've never said the Mafia was evil. I don't agree with a lot of the things that both the Mafia and the EU engage in but can see exactly why they have done these actions and their arguments for why these things are acceptable.
One such example is intimidation of people leaving the group -- the topic that started this discussion You made it a point to say:
> taking EU perks away and then you turn around and argue how evil and bad the EU is because it has nothing to offer
I find it very odd, and would never want to participate in a group, that would feel the need to intimidate people leaving it. For instance here in the States if one of these United States didn't want to be part of the union anymore I'd feel perfectly fine with putting it up to a vote for the people in that state. That's perfectly fine for me. I'd also be against any state attempting to "get back at them" or "teach them a lesson for going against the group". That's just bullying and I wouldn't expect it from anyone of polite company; that is behavior of children at play in an elementary school.
The Mafia also made attempts to intimidate people who left their ranks. Now I understand it from a Mafia perspective as a Mafia is meant to be run as a corporation. It's not for the benefit of the public but for the benefit of Mafia's stake holders. For them, intimidation is a form of self-preservation in an attempt of it's members to do the best for themselves, not to go against the will of the public.
What shocks me the most is that people are okay with hostile intimidation from the EU [1] but not from the Mafia when I feel it is more justified for a Mafia to do this then a government.
A government is meant to services as a way for regulating the people. If the people aren't being regulated fairly then the government should either change to shape themselves in the image of the public's morals or be removed from their place as the model of governance for the public. Now I've never seen this happen without violent kicking and screaming, as we are seeing here with the EU.
I don't support what the EU because it is a vengeful organization that want's it's fingers in all of the pies around the world. Not for the benefit of humanity, but instead for the benefit of a well segregated ruling class that looks down at many of you as mere peons.
Umm? The United States of America? Originally two and a half of three branches of government were indirectly elected. Today it's two of three. That half was the U.S. Senate, who ascended by state legislatures, not voted on. And today still federal judges are not elected, and the presidency is indirectly elected via the Electoral College. What matters is the accountability, not the unelected aspect. The U.S. is increasingly more centralized as history goes on, it used to be more things were left up to the states, i.e. federalism, a.k.a. a multinational organization.
Just because my country does it doesn't mean I agree with it. I feel that the public should have a streamlined voting process for making their opinions heard on ever government related matter
My IO requirements haven't changed that dramatically in the past six years, and are still well served by a Mid-2010 MacBook Pro.
I've got MagSafe for power, Mini DisplayPort for video out, Mini TOSLINK for audio out, and USB 2.0 for everything else. There's a gigabit Ethernet port if I want it, but otherwise 802.11n works just fine.
I'd like faster data transfer (not that any of my peripherals are USB C compatible yet), but otherwise I don't really understand what the massive fragmentation of connector standards does for me.
Also, "sales" on these new developments often turn out to mean "off-plan Asian investor put down a £20k deposit which they can and will walk away from in a heartbeat if the market looks like turning, because what are you going to do about it?". In some ways they behave more like options for property speculation.
The wider redevelopment has nothing to do with Apple.
The scheme got planning permission in 2011, and construction work has been ongoing since 2012.
It's a mixed-use development, with office space only part of the puzzle, and according to this article, Apple are only taking a lease on 40% of the office space.
I suspect Apple have negotiated hugely preferential rates on said space (as well as structuring the deal so as to pay the bare minimum in taxes, etc.), and the developers have agreed solely because having Apple move in is incredible PR.
Office developments often have "key tenants" that are big names that take an early lease on office space in a development and get a very good deal - having a big name then attracts other companies.
Actually, enormous deep-pocketed companies with good credit, like Apple, are treated very favorably by landlords. The credit behind the tenant on a leased property determines the yield. So, a building tenanted by Apple on a 20-year lease can sell for a 2% cap rate while the same building tenanted by Joe's Plumbers Inc on a 10-year lease will sell for 6%+. Apple knows that so they can negotiate cheaper price per SQM.
No. Scotland had an independence referendum two years ago, and one of he factors in that vote was the prospect of Britain opting to leave the EU.
Scotland voted decisively to remain in the UK, and to go the way of the UK on EU membership.
This is notwithstanding the fact Scotland is financially dependent on the rest of the UK, and would not survive on its own, let alone meet the criteria for joining the EU on its own.
It's not true to claim that the EU referendum was a salient fact when Scotland voted No to independence. In fact the opposite is true, with people campaigning for Scotland to stay in the UK being very vocal about how Independence would lead to leaving the EU.
People have been trying to rewrite this bit of history, but even Cameron himself didn't expect to have to follow through on his EU referendum commitment, either losing the election totally or relying on the Lib-dems to veto it in coalition.
This however seems to be a non-sequitor, from the original point, about being a member of the EU being non- or less independent than being part of the UK. So not sure what your opening "No" refers to, or why you're re-capping your anti-independence talking points.
This happens a lot - Scotland gets painted as a financial ruin, too poor to join the EU. With oil prices low and a deficit it's not exactly Norway - but suggesting it's too poor to join the EU is farcical. I live in Czech Republic and it's a FAR worse off place than Scotland, yet it's one of the more prosperous of the newer EU countries. Comparing Scotland to Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Croatia (all beautiful places, no disrespect) the gap is even wider.
More likely is that Spain would make things difficult - but you didn't say this
This is a good reason why the EU should fail, and why people voted for Brexit, which will hopefully go some way to making that happen.
To the average citizen, the EU is a gargantuan bureaucracy, burning through enormous sums of money, whose main concern seems to be churning out reams of incomprehensible regulations. It also has some courts that overrule our national governments from time to time.
I like the concept of a more integrated Europe, but the EU is just the first attempt at it.