Sivad wrote:In American terms, it would be like having the federal government run by state governors and their appointees
Thats not far off from how the Senate was supposed to work until it was made a democratic body as well based on popular election.
So given your point, it sounds like membership in the EU is not much different than state membership in the U.S.A was supposed to be like as originally conceived.
Given how that has worked out for state sovereignty over time, I can see why euroskepticism is a thing.
Ter wrote:His arguments about the Euro are also very correct. The common currency was not well thought out and has terrible consequences for a number of member countries. With Germany being the biggest beneficiary.And finally, the decision to let in millions of migrants from a different culture and religion has created a populist backlash the dimensions of which are not yet fully realised. That decision by Frau Merkel might be a very decisive and big nail in the EU coffin.
I don't really understand why any of this would still be regarded as controversial anymore.
The european banking crisis several years back combined with the populists movements of late, the yellow-vests, and even ol' Hilary herself coming out to chastize EU migrant-policy have taken what were once regarded as far-right conspiracies and made them common-knowledge.
I really don't know what the fate of the EU is and I don't care that much as American with my own political concerns; however, I generally view decentralization, secessionism, and cultural preservationism as de facto
moral goods so my leanings should be evident in this matter.
For most of the world now, it seems like the EU is having real problems and people need to acknowledge the conerns of the EU skeptic side instead of dismissing them as a merely racist conspiracies and nonsense. Real people are behind these movements and they are not all moral monsters, their complaints should be given some sort of thoughful analysis rather than dismissals.
I won't hold my breathe.