I can argue that you'll never admit how terrible an idea it is to build a European superstate. You'll instead say things like "it's not a superstate" and ignore the evidence to the contrary, like Merkel talking about an EU army. Even when they finally start building this army. You'll shift from "tin hat" to "why is it a problem".
When I voted for this, I did what research I could. That research revolved around how the EU works, how its democracy works, I obviously could not predict what would happen to the economy. I could only speculate, and argue that it was an opportunity for us to become less reliant on any single nation or bloc for our food. But I said then that sovereignty and democracy were more important. People like you turned sovereignty into a dirty word, but you can't do the same with democracy. You can pretend the EU is democratic, and maybe you can even convince yourself it is, but you're not convincing me. Or at the very least, it's not a form of democracy I find acceptable. No one party can control the EU, it is an extremely fractured coalition at best, and a one-party system at worst. Nothing has changed since I voted in this regard.
You say it's "sad" we all have to "suffer". I don't think you realise how much this statement undermines democracy. The whole point of democracy is that the majority make decision, whether they be "good" or "bad" (which are subjective terms). We have democracy because this is better than one individual or party from deciding what's best for everyone, from turning "good" and "bad" from subjective terms to objective ones.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Reply With Quote
