Posted Tue 21 Jun, 2016 5:02 AM –
Last edited by U.S.S. Hyperion; Tue 21 Jun, 2016 5:58 AM.
Please make sure to select ONLY 1 (ONE) option in the poll.
Moderator notice: If this was the wrong place to post this, please feel free to move it to the proper place.
Disclaimer/Who I am: 29 years old male german with political interest
Greetings community,
on 23 June 2016, the electorate of the UK will be voting over the future of the UK membership in the European Union. A historic day, independent of the result. As a german with political interest, I would like to share my opinion on the matter and - hopefully - incite an interesting discussion. Should I happen to offend anyone with this text, please accept my sincere apologies as this was not my intention.
Why I am hoping for an exit vote:
It might have educational value for both the EU and the UK
For the EU: There is no arguing over the fact that quite some EU officials believe a bit to much that the world revolves arround them. That belief might be painfully shaken if the UK shows them the middle finger. While arround as pleasant as getting a left hook from one of the Klitschko brothers, once the dust settles, we may finally have an honest discussion in ALL member countries about what the EU is supposed to be and what the people really want. The notoriously bureaucratic EU officials will have little say in that. Once a that debate concluded, a renewed united europe could move on, into a brighter future. One with less red tape and officials still being freshly reminded that "No, you cannot do every crap and get away with it". Because yes, the EU has many flaws and this might make an great opportunity to get rid of some of those.
For the UK: Realistically, if the majority of the UK electorate votes for a continued stay in the EU, the people who want to leave the EU wont just go away. Instead the UK would have to suffer their political pressure for the decades to come, annoying not only pro europeans citizens of the UK but also straining UK - EU relations. Make no mistake, many EU citizens are already annoyed at the special treatment that the UK receives right now. Strained relations however mean that the rest of the EU members may feel less need to have considerations about violating UK citizens interest. Which might trigger a second referendum, this time successful that will at this time weaken the EU much more in terms of global power, because several nations of the world will raise to superpower level in the next few decades. Having this old issue still not resolved is not in anyones interest. On the other hand, if the UK decides to quit now, the "Quit the EU now" supporters will have ample time to test their theories in practise. Now longer could anyone make claims about "we are better off out" because you now are out and everybody will have first hand experience about the real advantages and disadvantages. So if it would turn out that leaving the EU was a mistake, and the UK rejoins the EU after a decade or so, the political capital of the "UK out of Europe" would be destroyed. As such, the renewed UK-EU membership relations would probably be on much better terms. Which would benefit everyone as the world does indeed not revolve arround europe and that makes a unified voice more importantly with every passing decade.
It might help the rest of europe to move towards closer integration
In the past few decades Great Britain has not been exactly to fond of closer integration. With the UK out of the picture, the core european nations might seek to move towards even closer integration. Which might bring the UK in a very unfavourable position should they ever rejoin. They may face a much more unified and integrated europe that has much more self-confidence which might not be to keen on granting any special treatment for the returning member.
It will allow remaining EU countries to impose sanctions, next time we catch a british intelligence agency red handed
The UK got away very lightly in the Snowden scandal. Being in the same union does have disadvantages indeed. Should they decide to quit and should another scandal like that happen, the public fallout might make some politicians moving towards sanctions against the UK. While any sanctions hurt both sides, the power disparity between the remaining EU and the UK would put the UK at a significant disadvantage. Especially germans tend to take date privacy very seriously and an goverment that failed miserably in protecting those needs against the USA, may see this as an great opportunity to gain additional support, because the UK is indeed not the USA. Not that this justifies the spineless corwardice after the Snowden relevations, but I am rambling offtopic.
It would allow the EU to impose a real tax on financial transactions and fight tax heavens more
So far the the UK - in protection of its important banking business - was always on the brake in terms of taxation on financial transactions. With the UK out of any influence inside the EU, the remaining member states might finally be capable of putting such a tax into law. Considering that several tax heavens are basically british, the protection from sanctions currently blocked by the UK will vanish as the EU membership of the UK.
It might benefit continental european businesses in the midterm
While at first the loss of the UK would be a blow to europas economy, the worse market access of UK companies means less competition and as such more opportunities for continental companies. While in the longterm, this is bad for everybody (less competion means less innovation and worse quality of products for the customer) at least in the midterm, continental companies will benefit. Not in the least because a lot of investment currently flowing to London will be relocated to continental europe due to better market access.
Why I think that a united europe is a necessity in the mid to longterm
Political development and global situation in the 21st century.
“Nations have no friends, they only have interests.”
This sentence sadly pretty much sums up the global situation right now. Over 70 years after its foundation, the UN at best can offer mediocre protection to weaker nations and is often ignored. The law of the jungle dominates much of the current nation states affairs and this law is a law of the strongest. We are faraway from the vision of Gene Roddenberry of a united humankind, that lives in peace together on this world.
As such, if you want to serve the needs of your own people, you often will face challenges by nations who have contrary interests. Without any major - enforcable - international law, it in the end usually comes down to who can wield more power that will decide the outcome of your politics. Of course having allies can help in that regard, but your allies are usually not above "Nations have no friends, they only have interests.". And as such, getting a help request from "enter small insignificant nation here" will not be particular high on their agenda.
For example, a few years ago the german goverment bought a CD that contained data about people evading tax. The Swiss Confederation - which hold most of the black moneys accounts in one of their banks, protested severly. Which makes sense, if half your economy is running on tax evasion, you can have no interest in making tax evasion more unpopular in your country.
Only that the protest fell on deaf ears. At the end of the day, the Swiss Confederation is far to small, far to insignificant to be capable of imposing any meaningfull sanctions onto Germany. While they technically could impose sanctions that would hurt Germany, the return sanctions would hurt the Swiss Confederation far more.
And as such, even when Germany bought several more CDs, the Swiss Goverment find itself in the very unpopular situation to have to explain to its people that it in fact, cannot do ANYTHING against that. Even if it means loosing jobs in the Swiss Confederation. The stronger nation used its superior power to crush the interest of a weaker nation. Not out of malice, but because of contrary interests.
Now... consider that the Swiss Confederation and Germany have generally quite amiable relations. And yet, that was not enough for the German Goverment not to humiliate the Swiss Confederation. Now lets imagine for a second that instead of the Swiss Confederation, France had been the tax heaven in question. France is a great power and stepping on their toes seems much more unwise because you are not going to shrug off any counter sanctions as easily as the swiss ones.
But why is this relevant to the UK? It is a great power, too
Yes, it is. But the time of great powers having substantial world political influence is coming to an end. Primarly because new superpowers are on the rise. The 20th century was the century of the western powers, first Europe and then the USA. An technological development advantage allowed the western powers to dominate much of the earth in this century. But developing countries will catch up and they are in hot pursuit already.
So after the bipolar world of the cold war and the unipolar world after that, changes are very high that the future world will be multipolar. A multipolar world of super powers.
Superpowers like China.... India, Russia, potentially Brazil. And while potentially in decline, for a good amount of time the USA, too.
The cold reality is, that not a single one of all the european countries in the EU today is powerful enough to compete with the current and upcoming super powers. The best those single countries can hope to achieve in the world of tomorrow is the state of vassal states. So instead of taking orders from a future unified european goverment, a goverment you will have at least some say in, you may find yourself taking orders from Washington D.C, Moscow, Beijing, New Delhi or maybe even Brasília? Whatever superpower it will be, it is a safe bet that the interests of your people are not a primary concern for those superpowers. Probably not even a secondary, but rather a tertiary, if any at all.
Consider the example of the USA. After the end of the cold war the USA remain for the time being the only superpower. The nearly unipolar world of today. With their arch enemy Russia out of the picture for now, they could now freely wield that power to further their own interests. And they did so, and they were hardly feigning interest in what their european "partners" thought about that. With Russia no longer being in the picture, there was no further need for considerateness on their part. While there was and still is cooperation on affairs of mutual interest, if there is something the USA want, they get it. European interest being nearly irrelevant.
Back then when the were rumours about Edward Snowden being aboard the Bolivians president aircraft, the "sovereign" nations of europe outbid each other in preemptive obedience. They rejected the necessary overflying rights. Once landed in the austrian capital of Wien, an unlawful search for Snowden was conducted.
Snowden revealed that the USA were heavily spying on their european "allies". It had been in the national interest of any european country to support Snowden. Instead they throw national interest and the interests of their citizens out of the window. All for the benefit of the USA.
That is the current state of european national sovereignity. To puss it out, the moment the big brother over the atlantic makes demands. Keep waving your national flags, but make no mistake, the most important decisions about your welfare are not made by your elected goverment, or the EU, they are made in Washington DC. Unelected by you. Unaccountable by you. And responsible only for the welfare of the american people, not yours.
And this is very bitter for every human being living in europe. Yet, what is the alternative? Again, not a single one of the european countries is powerful enough for itself to do anything meaningfull about this. And it is not like the other choice, coming under russian influence is in any way more compelling. I certainly dont want that Putin has more influence in my life. But I dont want the current US influence either as this "leadership" is decidedly on the abusive side and little good comes from it. And this although the USA is a democracy and at least on paper shares similar values.
No. European future does not lie in subordination to the USA or Russia. And should we continue on this path, I am certain that we will all pay a heavy price for it. Economically and security wise. And yet, the single european nations may have no choice, but subordination. Unless they get their act together in the next few decades and speak with a unified voice. At least on common matters and interests. A voice that is democratically elected and accountable to the people. A justified point of criticism of the current system. And yet, if you want that the European parliament is democratically elected and matters, you have to give it some meaningfull powers. A power that can only come from lessening the powers of national parliaments in areas of common policy. Such a transfer or sovereign power is only acceptable if the protection of democracy and inviolable human rights is ensured.
I am a fond supporter of European Unity. And even human unity. And I would be willing to pay a high price for that goal. But not any price. A not sufficiently democratically accountable european super state is unacceptable.
My personal vision of a future Europe would be a Federation. A federation that wields the combined power of its citizens in its outside affairs. A federation that wields that power to the betterment of humanity as a whole. A federation that does not squeeze the national identiy of the people. A federation that stands strong for democracy and human rights. A Federation that protects common values, but one that does not regularise every fine detail of everybody's life. That is what national parliaments and municipal councils are for. Which are accountable to their voters, too. A federation, that maybe... in the very long term, will even invite a democratically russia into its ranks. Although I am not sure if we should do this, I mean some die hard ultra right wing could die from stroke if they receive the news... :-P
Why I think that the UK will suffer in the longterm, should they vote out and stay out of Europe.
I mentioned above why I think that a temporary leaving of the EU could benefit both the UK and the EU. However, a longterm or even permanent leave is an entirely different topic.
Having a say in single market policy
Leaving the EU is leaving the single market. While it is likely, that a new deal will be made, it is quite unlikely that the UK would enjoy any particular special treatment in those negotiations.
The EU has currently 28 member countries and has an estimated 508,191,116 people living in it.
The UK has a population of 64,716,000 people.
The EU without the UK would have arround 443,475,116 people.
That is "only" 6.85 times the population. And only 28 goverments (27 remaining member states and the EU itself) to convince to act against their own interest by granting the UK special treatment.
UK businesses risk to loose access to 443 million potential customers.
EU businesses only risk to loose access to 64 million potential customers.
Take a guess who is in the better bargaining position?
This power disparity will not only make it difficult for the UK to achieve its negotiating goals, but it will also make sure that any neglecting of the treaty obligations on the UK side will be meet with substantial repercussions.
Even if the UK would be allowed to have access to the free market, this will not be without costs. Just like the Swiss Confederation and Norway, you can expect to send several billions a year to the EU, for this privilege. Money, over which use, you will have absolutely no say. Add the lost EU monetary support for your population to the equation and I very much doubt you will save much, or anything at all.
The vast majority of EU policy and regulations concern the single market. And as such the UK will have to obey them, inside EU or outside.
Access to the single market is something the UK badly needs, a fact admitted even by staunch BREXIT supporters. But with access to this market comes the rules of this market. And one of the most important rules of this market is the free movement of people and goods.
The popular and often cited polish plumber would still be allowed to do business anywhere where he pleases in the UK. The EU probaly would never accept an treaty that did not entail this right, as this is what makes the single market.
If the UK does not like that, they are of course free to leave the single market. And while that certainly will hurt european economy somewhat, it will be a far cry from the repercussions for the british economy. There is no question who has more staying power here.
The bureaucratic regulation is exactly the same topic. You want access to the single market? You WILL obey every single damm piece of regulation made in Brussels... regulation you will have absolutely no say about anymore.... and you WILL obey it down to the very last letter. If you dont, no market access. Want to help your ailing automotive industry by lowering environmental standards? Go ahead, you are an free sovereign state after all. Just dont expect to sell any of those cars on the european single market. 10000 jobs on the line in the UK? The EU does not care. Not anymore than the German Goverment cared about the banking jobs in the Swiss Confederation when they bought that CD about tax evasion. No, politics are not nice. They are quite shark-infested waters.
"Nations dont have friends. They just have interests." It would be wise, to make sure that the interest of the european union is affected by the interest of the british people. The best way to assure that, is to stay inside, or better rejoin after everybody has learned his lesson. As a member state, you carry significant political weight. Remember the current british EU discount that totals to arround 110 billions of savings in the decades since the Iron Lady "persuaded" the europeans back then. A persuasion that probably involved quite some "handbagging". and which was only possible because the UK is an important member state. Again, politics are not for the faint of heart. Or what about Cameron tries of renogation with the EU? How many concessions shall the EU make to appease the wanting to leave EU camp? I dont think that there can be any serious concessions because any special treatment of the UK will make other member states also want to have special rights. What the UK got so far, is the end of the line. Any more concessions are probably not communicable to the voters in rest of europe.
You are not the Swiss Confederation and leaving something is not the same as not joining something
When the electorate of the Swiss Confederation showed the "join the EU" plan the middle finger, the following negotiations between the EU and the Swiss Confederation were based on the mutual understanding that if the Swiss people are to be convinced to join next time, we better be nice to them. As such the EU was rather generous on the terms of the treaty. Same for Norway.
On the other hand, if the UK quits, it would be against the most basic of european union interest to show generosity on the terms of any potential new treaty: You cannot reap all the benefits of a club without helping the clubs funding and its common goals. If the EU would be stupid enough to give the UK all or most of the benefits without adding considerable costs, then the british exit might very well trigger a chain reaction. Europe can survive the UK leaving, but it may not survive several member states quiting and then getting similar benefits as remaining members. Should europe really be this foolish, maybe Putin doesnt sound so bad anymore.
So, if the UK slams the door shut, this time those negotiations will most likely be all about cold calculations and I would not expect a particular friendly welcome for the UK on the negotiation table. Neither would I expect a particular high willingness of the remaining EU for obligingness.
The Scotish question
The scotish referrendum was a quite close call. With all polls seeing the scots as more pro european, an UK exit vote may very will trigger another referrendum, this time possible a successful one. Which would not only be a severe blow to the UK but might make other parts of the UK also go seperate ways.
Will the UK leave the EU?
I would estimate that while it will be decidedly to close for comfort that a majority of the electorate will vote for the UK staying the the EU.
I want to again point out that this post is not meant to offend anyone and If I did so, please accept my sincere apologies.
So.... you want to use Britain as an Experiment......... yeah, no.
I will be voting stay, I have many reasons for this and you've just highlighted one for me.
Currently, the 3 main powers in the EU atm is the UK, Germany and France, and with the removal of the UK IF the UK decides to leave then this would leave the EU mainly in the power of Germany as France at the moment is a mess, and as seen in history Germans have a tendency for unity.
Also, many of the EU citizens here in the UK actually would prefer us to leave before the EU "F#cks" up the UK, but yet if we do leave this would leave this would be perilous for the countries that are weaker in the EU without the UK.
One last note, you say you want britain to leave as an Experiment....... But then go on to say that Britain will Suffer in the long term if we leave. That is the type of thinking that led to certain political problems in the 20th century and just disgusts me.
I don't really know enough about the central issue to comment or form an informed opinion, but the idea that Snowden's revelations would have led to significant sanctions is silly. Every state decrying espionage is simply engaging in empty political posturing. At best it would be a token punishment to pacify the masses, to be quietly resolved subsequently.
Every state spies on every other state, especially if they're supposed to be your allies. All the ways an enemy foreign power can affect your nation pale in comparison to what a friendly trading partner can do, even inadvertently.
Wasn't there a similar discussion/debate about this already?
Yes there was a discussion/debate HERE which was also about the European Union although that one was a bit more about ideology.
Personally I will be voting to stay in the EU.
I think the EU has some serious flaws, such as the fact that we don't get any say in who runs it, but I think it is best for the majority of Europeans that we work more closely together and right now the EU is probably the best option for that.
I sincerely hope the UK stays in the EU but I hope that the thought of the UK leaving and the growing anti-EU movement in a lot of EU countries results in those with power in the EU realising the need for reform.
"IMPOSSIBLE IS A WORD TO BE FOUND ONLY IN THE DICTIONARY OF FOOLS."
So.... you want to use Britain as an Experiment......... yeah, no.
I will be voting stay, I have many reasons for this and you've just highlighted one for me.
Currently, the 3 main powers in the EU atm is the UK, Germany and France, and with the removal of the UK IF the UK decides to leave then this would leave the EU mainly in the power of Germany as France at the moment is a mess, and as seen in history Germans have a tendency for unity.
Also, many of the EU citizens here in the UK actually would prefer us to leave before the EU "F#cks" up the UK, but yet if we do leave this would leave this would be perilous for the countries that are weaker in the EU without the UK.
One last note, you say you want britain to leave as an Experiment....... But then go on to say that Britain will Suffer in the long term if we leave. That is the type of thinking that led to certain political problems in the 20th century and just disgusts me.
I am sorry that I have offended you. That was not my intention.
- I dont want to turn the UK into an experiment. I just think that europe needs a wake up call as well as some serious soul searching, and that the UK refendum may finally trigger an open debate about the future of Europe and as such could help a lot in this regard. Compared to a probably vain attempt to ride out the problems with time.
- I hope that with "Germans have a tendency for unity" you are not seriously comparing the third reich starting world war 2 with today politics.
- Perhaps the seperation and then reunification of germany after WW2 had some influence, as well as the - historic - german federalism that dates back way earlier than the 20th century.
- The vast majority of german citizen does neither seek nor want a leadership position within europe. Same for the majority of europeans. Germany tends to tread very carefully , even to carefully sometimes in the opinion of a most suprising source. ( http://www.economist.com/blogs/easte...appeal-germany )
Mr Sikorski went on to highlight the fragility of the EU's institutions and procedures: they work "tolerably well" when times are good, but depend on "goodwill and a sense of propriety" that frays quickly in a crisis. The collapse of the euro zone would be just such a crisis, but far worse than any experienced in the EU in its history.
He also supported dramatic changes in the political governance of the EU, including pan-European candidates lists for the European Parliament, fewer commissioners and perhaps a directly elected EU president. In return, the EU would stay out of everything to do with national identity, culture, religion, lifestyle, public morals, and rates of income, corporate and VAT.
Next came a warning to Britain:
If you can't join, please allow us to forge ahead. And please start explaining to your people that European decisions are not Brussels's diktats but results of agreements in which you freely participate
The biggest threat to Poland's security and prosperity, Mr Sikorski said, was not terrorism or the Taliban (and certainly not German tanks). It was not even the Russian missiles that the Kremlin is threatening to deploy on Poland's border. A far greater threat would be the collapse of the euro zone.
Mr Sikorski concluded:
I demand of Germany that, for your sake and for ours, you help [the euro zone] survive and prosper. You know full well that nobody else can do it. I will probably be the first Polish foreign minister in history to say so, but here it is: I fear German power less than I am beginning to fear German inactivity.
- I am also confident that France will overcome its current troubles and as such I really cannot see Germany becoming europas power center. Especially not as a larger union tends to limit the influence of single member states, no matter the size.
- Considering the political and economical interrelations between continental europe and the UK, I woud estimate that if continental europe dissolves into chaos and anarchy, the UK would be severly affected, too. If Europe seriously "f*cks off, the repercussions will most likely be grievous to the UK, inside the EU or not.
- In answer of your last note: I wanted that the UK leaves the EU temporarly. To make my opinion perfectly clear:
- Brexit will most probably hurt Europe and UK in the short term
- Brexit may (hopefully) lead to some serious soul searching in both europe and the UK. A process that I personally hope will lead to a rejoining of the UK into a reformed europe within a decade or so.
- So in the longterm, the UK referendum may very well have a quite positive influence.
- I did not say that the UK will suffer in the longterm because of the referendum! I said that they will probably suffer in the longterm, IF they never rejoin! If the UK rejoins a reformed europe in the midterm, it is my honest opinion and hope that the long term benefits of the referendum will by far outweight the short and midterm costs. Because it is my hope that this referendum will trigger a badly needed EU reform, a reform that makes europe appealing again. And the UK is a important part of europe, not by any politics but because of simple geographic realities.
I do not wish harm to anyone, but I think Europe has reached a crossroad in its history. The status quo in my opinion is unsustainable. The centrifulgal forces will raise and raise, until the entire continent shatters into chaos and anarchy. No. The European project has no future, if it does not enjoy the broad support of the public. But that support has to be earned. Europe needs to deliver, it needs to convince the broad public that its existence and the associated costs both financially and politically are worth it.
If it cannot do that, it has no future. And the UK may indeed be better off out.
I never wanted to turn the UK into an experiment. One does not make experiments with the well being of people. And yet in politics, this is often what happens because it is indeed very hard to predict what will happen.
It is just my hopeful opinion that - in the midterm - both the UK and Europe will benefit from this referendum. Yes, it will hurt in the short term. It will be quite painful. For both sides.
But what is the alternative? If the UK had voted to remain a member of the EU, the status quo would have remained. A status quo that I fear can only lead to disaster. The EU is ailing. It is challenged by multiple crises, crises it often failed to deliver an acceptable answer to.
Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe do not share our Euro-enthusiasm. Disillusioned with the great visions of the future, they demand that we cope with the present reality better than we have been doing until now. Today, Euro-scepticism, or even Euro-pessimism have become an alternative to those illusions. And increasingly louder are those who question the very principle of a united Europe. The spectre of a break-up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation doesn't seem to me like the best answer to it. We need to understand the necessity of the historical moment. As the President of the European Council I want to start an honest and open debate on the subject. The sixtieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome provides a good background for such a debate. Donald Tusk, President of the European Council
Even if the UK had voted to remain, having basically half your population wanting to get out is a sad commentary on the state of the european idea. And it is not only the UK where anti EU sentiment is growing. There are to many people who have been left behind. If you look at the map and compare voters and general economic development, the case is crystal clear. People are unwilling - and rightfully so - to support an organisation that seems to do little good for them in their daily lives. Or even one that hurts their lives. While in the midterm, more people almost always means more economic power, in the short term there are undeniable job replacements taking place. Which makes people affected rightfully angry. Speeches full of pathos are all nice, but at the end of the day, you have to deliver. And Europe does not deliver enough.
And that is where I think that there is an vicious circle. Because of lack of integration, europe is incapable of adressing the major issues that plague so many of its citizens. Because europe does not deliver, people have no trust in it. Because people have no trust in it, promoting further integration is not communicable politically in many membership countries. So further integration steps are impossible, and as such there is not enough power to adress the issues that plague the citizens and the circle continues.
Example: Democratic accountability. The EU has an issue there. But to solve it, one need to transfer more sovereign powers to the EU to make the EU parliament more important. But people are unwilling to do that because it is not democratically accountable enough. And of course there is an issue with democracy. You can actually loose a poll, as any "Remain" voters will grimly tell you.
Further integration would have been much more difficult with the UK remaining a member. Not that it is easy now, but easier. It may finally break the deadlock. Maybe it will be only a few countries which are the most pro european to make the first steps into an ever closer union. With the BREXIT on the horizon and the fear of a domino effect, there is going to be an immense pressure on those core european countries to make it work, and to make it work well.
If the core european nations make it work, this will attract other countries into joining as well because it seems beneficial to them. Having a visible working example will also increase public support, a mandatory requirement in any democracy. And democracy is not negotiable. Irrelevant of the cost, the will of the people is to be the highest law.
The political earthquake in the aftermath of the referendum, it should be an wake up call for Europe. The status quo is not good enough. And yet without the pressure of the referendum, I would have feared that european leaders would only act, when it is to late and the damage has been done. The BREXIT vote now forces their hand. They can no longer simple ride out the problem. And the lack of public support is a huge problem. One that needs adressing immediatly. It it is not adressed now, it will only get worse, probably so worse, that it cannot be rescued.
The supporters of "better of out" in the UK also now have to prove to their people that the UK is indeed better of out. If they fail to do that, and I believe they will, I dont imagine that we will have 50 % in the UK wanting to leave in the future. Instead we may have 70 % wanting to rejoin a reformed EU in the future. With a significant majority of the younger UK population being pro european, I would dare to say, that time is on europes side.
For starters, Farage already had an rather embarassing reality check...
Yes there was a discussion/debate HERE which was also about the European Union although that one was a bit more about ideology.
Personally I will be voting to stay in the EU.
I think the EU has some serious flaws, such as the fact that we don't get any say in who runs it, but I think it is best for the majority of Europeans that we work more closely together and right now the EU is probably the best option for that.
I sincerely hope the UK stays in the EU but I hope that the thought of the UK leaving and the growing anti-EU movement in a lot of EU countries results in those with power in the EU realising the need for reform.
That is my hope, too.
Lets hope that the people in responsibility will find a way that benefits everyone.
Quote
That was not my intention. 
