Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! The EU provides considerable benefits for Europe, arguably the most important, but also the most invisible, being peace. World War II ended only 74 years ago. To be a little dramatic: As a German, I'll gladly pay bureaucracy for peace. There's trade benefits inside the EU, free travel for all citizens, and, recently added, no more roaming fees for mobile phones. This is just what comes to mind right now. There's plenty to criticize and reform in the EU, but I disagree that leaving would improve things for any country.

>As a German, I'll gladly pay bureaucracy for peace. There's trade benefits inside the EU, free travel for all citizens, and, recently added, no more roaming fees for mobile phones.

Of course brain drain has been hugely beneficial for Germany. It also helps Germany that weaker economies are tied to the euro which keeps the euro's exchange rate down.

I used to be pro-EU, but time and time again they create regulations and directives that are simply harmful for our future or don't consider collateral damage. Furthermore, Germany and France seem to be pushing hard on becoming rulers whether the other members want it or not.

>but I disagree that leaving would improve things for any country.

Of course leaving won't improve things because the EU will try to punish any leavers as much as possible. The entire EU situation is just depressing, because you can't leave, it won't improve and bad decisions keep being made and you're forced to abide by them. And what makes it even worse is that the pro-EU people are telling me that I should be happy because of these bad decisions.

> Of course leaving won't improve things because the EU will try to punish any leavers as much as possible. The entire EU situation is just depressing, because you can't leave, it won't improve and bad decisions keep being made and you're forced to abide by them.

Ultimately all bad decisions must be paid for. This is the hidden cost of letting the EU exist. Unfortunately, the longer it exists the more painful it will be to leave.

> The EU provides considerable benefits for Europe, arguably the most important, but also the most invisible, being peace. World War II ended only 74 years ago. To be a little dramatic: As a German, I'll gladly pay bureaucracy for peace.

The EU is not associated with peace and of course cannot guarantee it. Citizens of EU countries are better off with their own country's rule of law than to succumb to the generality of all of Europe.

> There's trade benefits inside the EU, free travel for all citizens, and, recently added, no more roaming fees for mobile phones.

These all come at a cost you don't yet realize.

I agree that the EU cannot guarantee peace, of course. However, it really pushed European integration forward. It's a bit mundane, but all the cultural exchange through trade, travelling, student exchange programs and so on has made the kind of war enthusiasm people had in pre-war Europe pretty unlikely. Afterall, I've been to Paris and can confirm that the French are actually people, not baby eaters (classic WW1 propaganda). Though they eat snails. Weird. Of course, there's also the economic argument: I'm definitely no expert in economics, so I'm talking in very broad and simple terms here (and open to arguments), but the European economies are heavily intertwined through the single market. At least, that makes it institutionally more complicated and more expensive to go to war, which is an achievement, I think.

A heavily intertwined single market is not something to celebrate or look forward to. It's something to reverse before it's too late.

Optionality is king. I'd rather have twelve options than one.

> World War II ended only 74 years ago

NATO was founded 70 years ago

The EU as we know it was established 27 years ago

NATO, despite its faults, has done more for European integration and peace than the EU. It carried Europe together through the stark darkness of the Cold War; how would the EU fare against such an existential threat?

That's a fair point about the NATO! Didn't mean to marginalize it, but there's only so many words to a sufferable HN comment.

It's true that today's EU was only established in 1992/93, but it is the result of a very long process of European integration starting in ECSC in 1951 and the EEC in 1957. Cooperation between Germany and France started remarkably early after World War II. A few years earlier, they could not have been more bitter enemies.

I agree with you and would say that the EU is utterly useless in a military conflict, precisely because there has always been the NATO to fall back on. This might change in the future as the US is becoming less reliable and more isolationist from a German standpoint at least, then again, there might be no political power capable of reforming the EU further right now.

In short, I think the EU helps Europe have internal peace. For everything else, I am glad to sit under a nuclear umbrella.

> How about vote no on the EU altogether

How about you just leave EU?

It's full of countries out there that are waiting for you and don't care about protecting your data.

You're free.

That's what I'm promoting. Not individuals like myself but countries should leave the EU so individuals can have more freedom.

He will stay where he is, and he will vote for politicians who either support or oppose staying in the EU, as it's his right.

I can access the internet with no additional cost throughout the EU thanks to them, that's not a terrible law around internet usage?

Not many governments have a good track record with regards to regulating IT. My local government (Denmark) cannot even respect basic human rights in their IT laws, and even when said laws are deemed a human rights violation, they refuse to remove them, instead leaving them in place while claiming they'll be "revised".

There are also many other issues where EU does better than IT. Food safety, environment regulations and trade agreements, just to mention a few.

While smaller units are almost universally better (imagine how different history would have been if the provinces of China had been independent countries), but does mean that each individual country must make many more agreements on their own, and have to shape their own regulations for things like food safety and environmental efforts, which might not turn out as well if they are not forced by the collective.

> While smaller units are almost universally better

I completely agree. In my opinion it should go down to the individual level.

Let's say China had independent states/countries per province. And, they all agreed to a set of laws individually but disagreed as a collective set of laws.

This would mean that most citizens would suffer as the laws are (at best) an average of the opinions of all citizens of China.

Being an average, most people would have at least one disagreement on how a particular law should or should not be. There will be of course some some people that lie on the exact average. These lucky people would be 100% fairly represented.

In order to be fair ultimately law needs to favor the individual, not a country, state, or other larger group.