BREXIT : The EU can't prosper for long. Perhaps here's how.

I've been doing a lot of research into the European-Union and trying to find out why people actually
follow it, what principles they share in their collective and what the truth about it really entails.

I did not vote in BREXIT I did not have enough information but I was leaning towards the fact that the union was being
controlled behind the scenes by corporate interests. I am a conspiracy theorist after all!

I started with the claims of it being undemocratic and my own terror at another soviet union emerging with an army to boot.

My more "educated" social media friends seemed not to care about this at all.
This all seemed logical that my viewpoint was wrong and I should give in to theirs,
I should indeed accept a large multi national superstate in the name of the people because it's moral and tolerant to do so.

I was bombarded with
"Do you want to be part of something big."
"Do you want to be isolated etc?"
"I don't want to vote on the side of xenophobes that would make me not a decent person"
"blah blah blah the economy etc."

I was conflicted..

Something did not add up. They smacked of hypocrisy, propaganda, logical fallacies, manipulation greed etc
and did not address the issues I had.

..I kept plodding along.


Then came the vote, the hate, intolerance and the division which signalled to me that blind hypocrisy and bigots ruled both sides.

I did not get anywhere with that. It resulted in me just criticising them for their flaws in reasoning etc.
I got bored and started reading other connected material like philosophy etc (Very good reading BTW) which eventually brought me full circle back to the same points but at least I had ammunition to deal with them now! Isn't it strange how things happen like that a co incidence perhaps?

Anyway, I read this article I'd like to share. I hope it is in the correct forum.

www.resilience.org...

Years ago, the great Austrian economist Leopold Kohr argued that overwhelming evidence from science, culture and biology all pointed to one unending truth: things improve with an unending process of division.
...
Of course, that's not the way the media and pundits have framed this important debate. They present the vote on whether Britain should remain or leave the European Union as some sort of proxy war on immigration, free trade and the tolerance of so-called progressive societies.
But these issues are just symptoms of a much greater malaise: the tyrannical nature of big organizations. They can't work or prosper for long because their scale is inhuman, abusive and wrong.
...
In the end Mother Nature offers a cure for bigness, but it usually involves extinction, collapse or annihilation.

Kohr's paper.
www.ditext.com...


So yes ! I do not want to be part of something big I don't really care. I am not a xenophobe. Little can be better and more diverse and people can be happier!
I think the xenophobe problem was whipped up by demagogues and exploded because of an underlying pressure from unhappy people.

Could this be an argument for the breaking up of the European Union or indeed why other empires are doomed to fail?

Limbo

EU is too different. Made up with multiple countries unlike China or Russia. If everyone started speaking English in EU it would either be British or America supremacy.

a reply to: Limbo

Always glad to read something from -who I think- are broad-minded people.

I think I'm one of them. So maybe what follows is wrong, but at this moment I think you are wrong.

Not multinationals are leading the world, but a number of people who have a plan with this world. Although we mostly don't see it. But their plan in some way or another results in: uniting the world. This process goes on for 5000 years or so.

Within a few hundreds of years we will all speak English. Ultimately we will be connected with each other maybe by brain waves. And so on.

If we will live in small countries or in super nations is an issue not too important but I think it will even be in a kind of world nation. Anyway we will all be ruled by a central power. Because to make a long story short: all people in this world make one big consciousness. yes we are all brothers and sisters (don't bother about my soft words), I do my best to make myself clear in a language that still is not mine.

www.evawaseerst.be...

Nice work op.

I agree to an extent with your premise that smaller organisational structures work better, though I take the view that it is because they allow representation to be closer to the electorate.
If you see how your local parish council works, as a constituent you are much closer to the decision making process than you are with the national parliament.
I firmly believe that most of the problems with the EU are down to the disconnect between the people to whom the laws apply and those (who they can't vote for) who make the laws.
Even in a huge system like the US one, people can at least vote for someone who will enact or repeal legislation which allows the machinery of government to respond to the will of the people. There isn't any such mechanism in the EU.
(For those who don't know, MEP'S, who are elected by the people, have no power to draft legislation, all they can do is vote on that proposed by the commission, who are not elected and who meet behind closed doors....an essentially Soviet model of government ).

originally posted by: zandra
a reply to: Limbo

Always glad to read something from -who I think- are broad-minded people.

I think I'm one of them. So maybe what follows is wrong, but at this moment I think you are wrong.

Not multinationals are leading the world, but a number of people who have a plan with this world. Although we mostly don't see it. But their plan in some way or another results in: uniting the world. This process goes on for 5000 years or so.

Within a few hundreds of years we will all speak English. Ultimately we will be connected with each other maybe by brain waves. And so on.

If we will live in small countries or in super nations is an issue not too important but I think it will even be in a kind of world nation. Anyway we will all be ruled by a central power. Because to make a long story short: all people in this world make one big consciousness. yes we are all brothers and sisters (don't bother about my soft words), I do my best to make myself clear in a language that still is not mine.

www.evawaseerst.be...

I'm conflicted about this also.
Initially I did think of a New World Order scenario but I think the same thing can be achieved
and explained by corporate pressure. I read about the quote attributed (incorrectly) Jean Monnet
the situation does frighteningly look that way. Also the fact I've read about the conspiracy theory
and seen videos of Bush proclaiming "A New World Order and we will have it." the newspaper paper reports about the CIA EU plan etc. I'm assuming that is what you meant anyway. You might be right.
All I could really do was justify why an exit from the EU was the right thing for me.

I reasoned that a single centralised power was more easy to manipulate than lots of little nations.
Also USA is covered with NATO etc which seems to have lead to a MAD stalemate currently.

Also the EU is looking worrying to me - they have trouble with the currency they were an economic empire
and now they have imperial ambitions outside their own borders which makes them full on empire.
Combined with their ambitions for a multi national army, all looked dangerous to me.
They need to make a country so they can control the money distribution within their states.
That essentially means a superstate which they would need a single currency and an army to protect it.
They also want to expand into more states. Dangerous IMO
They also have anti free speech laws which is very worrying.
I could go on. I'd love to see those declassed CIA papers if anyone wants to post them.

BTW thanks for your link I will check it out when I get some sleep!
Limbo

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Nice work op.

I agree to an extent with your premise that smaller organisational structures work better, though I take the view that it is because they allow representation to be closer to the electorate.
If you see how your local parish council works, as a constituent you are much closer to the decision making process than you are with the national parliament.
I firmly believe that most of the problems with the EU are down to the disconnect between the people to whom the laws apply and those (who they can't vote for) who make the laws.
Even in a huge system like the US one, people can at least vote for someone who will enact or repeal legislation which allows the machinery of government to respond to the will of the people. There isn't any such mechanism in the EU.
(For those who don't know, MEP'S, who are elected by the people, have no power to draft legislation, all they can do is vote on that proposed by the commission, who are not elected and who meet behind closed doors....an essentially Soviet model of government ).

Hi
Your point makes sense but i'd like to point this out.
I looked into democracy also and how it _should_ work.
I don't know if you are aware of it - you might be but it is called
Miracle Of Aggregation or Wisdom of the crowds etc.
You have 2 groups in a vote "informed" and "uninformed."
The uninformed consist of 50:50 mix of pro and con and they cancel each other out (there's your problem?)
and the remaining "informed" people tip the vote.
Lobbying, voting selection bias are some explanations why it might not worth in practice.
I read about some solutions to reduce this bias by randomly selecting votes etc but I did not look much into it.
I think decentralisation of power would reduce the potential of this bias causing much mayhem.
Also your point implies a demos - the EU sadly lacks in one, a topic hotly debated.

Also your point about the commision proposing the laws and the council doing this behind closed doors
none of which have democratic legitimacy. Effectively you are weakening the parliament to rubber stamping
proposals you make.

If you look how the EU parliament works it has MEPs from nation states each voting against each other so that
should kick out some nationalistic bias but more and more the EU is becoming Angela Merkel and that should not be happening IMO. All very scary.....something is wrong.

Currently looking into this.

www.econexus.info...

..and someone sent me this

www.youtube.com...

Limbo

a reply to: Limbo

You can take it a variety of ways regarding groups voting.

To use an analogy, In horse racing the odds on a particular horse are broadly set by the amount of money wagered on that horse. Bookies rarely let their own feelings on a particular horse affect the price once the market is in action.

All those different people following a trainer, a jockey, a sire , a cool name or even some form system are more often right than wrong.
There are some blips where no favourite wins at a meeting (Though that's usually weather related) but generally, large disparate groups tend to get it right.


Just to clarify, my point about the commission was a statement of how it works, not how I think it should.

a reply to: Limbo

Xenophobia is a commonly used boogeyman used to ostracize dissent.

Its the waste in the EU that I cannot forgive, one instance is Bulgaria building 12 miles of roads at 16 million Euro's a mile!
Then there is the EU attack on British jobs, Jaguar, Ford, Cadbury, Peugeot, etc., all given grants to move their factory's to European countries, Dyson had a loan to move to Malaysia!
Parts of the UK are owned by foreigners, the London airports are Spanish owned, EDF is French owned, BP has nothing to do with Britain at all, Hornby models has gone to the far east, and its patents with it.
The new British army AFV 'Ajax' is to be built in Spain, with Swedish steel, more jobs lost in Wales, The 'remainers' have no idea.