Is the EU actually about to break up?

demfad

stringed theory wrote: »

This interview is like the rubbish. you expect from the  British tabloid press.  So a journalist thinks that the EU civil service is overpaid and over privileged.  I have no view on that.  It proves nothing. In terms of the big issues it is almost irrelevant. 
The European Union represents the democratic wish of the people as expressed through national governments and the European parliament.  It is at least as democratic an institution as the government of the United States, for example, and is no more dysfunctional than the national governments from whom it derives its powers.
It will not fail.  No other country has a press like the British press so devoted to spreading inflammatory and unchallenged garbage. No other country has such a nostalgia for a lost empire,  a nostalgia even for world war 2 ,  combined with such a deep seated and deluded  sense of  its own importance.

Deloitte put the amount of extra civil servants that the UK would need to employ as 30,000 because of Brexit which is roughly the amount of Civil servants in Brussels.
She is from Breitbart news which is a white supremacist front and an organisation that fully backs the despot Putin and wants the destruction of the EU.
Our entire FDI economy is based on being inside the EU. All our developments in equality and liberalism come through the EU.
Do people really want us to go back to being some kind of farmyard for Britain, with the holy Catholic church dictating right and wrong and with women, children, minorities and immigrants treated as 2nd and 3rd class citizens?

Yurt123

Apparently Putin is trying to help La Pen or whatever she's called win the French election as he did with Trump and the American election by hacking the oppositions emails and that sort of thing, Putin isn't trying to do us all a favour, he's only trying to weaken the West so he can benefit

What's the UK going to benefit from leaving the EU, immigration has been out of control in their country for decades, its a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted if they're leaving the EU purely because they want less immigration which seems to be the number 1 reason for many people who voted for the UK to leave

audi12

Inquitus wrote: »

Le Pen can't win, the real problems we face this year are the Netherlands with Wilders and Five Star in Italy, if we can get past those unscathed then the EU is safe, the AFD in Germany is also a risk if they manage to prevent Merkel from being re-elected.

She cant win can she not well she is only 9/4 second favorite so I would say you may be right but according to those odds you could also very well be wrong.

demfad

Yurt123 wrote: »

Apparently Putin is trying to help La Pen or whatever she's called win the French election as he did with Trump and the American election by hacking the oppositions emails and that sort of thing, Putin isn't trying to do us all a favour, he's only trying to weaken the West so he can benefit

What's the UK going to benefit from leaving the EU, immigration has been out of control in their country for decades, its a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted if they're leaving the EU purely because they want less immigration which seems to be the number 1 reason for many people who voted for the UK to leave

They are not even going to be able to deliver on immigration now apparently. It wont be going down they will need immigrants to stay competitive after Brexit and to do the range of jobs throughout society that they have always done. It seems impossible to craft an immigration policy that doesnt hurt the economy.
Brexit is by no means a done deal yet.

knipex

suziki832 wrote: »

It seems it all boils down to the same thing as regards people voting for far right groups: immigration and refugees. I think people are sick of their neighbourhoods becoming full of Muslims and losing their national identity. This is why Brexit and Trump happened.

WHAT ???

Middle America is full of Muslims ??

KenjiOdo

NIMAN wrote: »

There was plenty of them sold off land during the boom when they were being offered crazy money for sites.

Around Dublin/Meath/Kildare hardly represents the majority of farmers...

stringed theory

Wanderer78 wrote: »

stringed theory wrote:

This interview is like the rubbish. you expect from the British tabloid press. So a journalist thinks that the EU civil service is overpaid and over privileged. I have no view on that. It proves nothing. In terms of the big issues it is almost irrelevant. The European Union represents the democratic wish of the people as expressed through national governments and the European parliament. It is at least as democratic an institution as the government of the United States, for example, and is no more dysfunctional than the national governments from whom it derives its powers. It will not fail. No other country has a press like the British press so devoted to spreading inflammatory and unchallenged garbage. No other country has such a nostalgia for a lost empire, a nostalgia even for world war 2 , combined with such a deep seated and deluded sense of its own importance.

The eu is extremely undemocratic, the last few years has confirmed this. This could very well lead to its collapse.

In general, I think  people claim that the EU is undemocratic when the elected members of the European Council, the councils of ministers, and the European Parliament do not act in whatever way they want them to act.
Also, I know some people have a major cultural bias against the very concept of European unity. Maybe everyone should come clean about their gut instincts before deliberating on the details.

topmanamillion

demfad wrote: »

They are not even going to be able to deliver on immigration now apparently. It wont be going down they will need immigrants to stay competitive after Brexit and to do the range of jobs throughout society that they have always done. It seems impossible to craft an immigration policy that doesnt hurt the economy.
Brexit is by no means a done deal yet.

Multiple poster have said this on multiple Brexit related threads.
Its rubbish.
There`s simply no way back now.
The momentum is such that any politician that stands in the way of Brexit will automatically end their own political career.
That politician would be blocking the decision of a plebiscite or in other words the democratic decision of the people.
Even anti Brexit campaigners could have no faith in someone who would do that.
The best anti Brexit politicians can do is abstain from voting on parliament decisions on Brexit. Then hope a few years down the line they can make some political capital from their "protest".

Zubeneschamali

topmanamillion wrote: »

That politician would be blocking the decision of a plebiscite or in other words the democratic decision of the people.

Lots of Irish politicians have done it and gotten away with it:

Nice II, Lisbon II, Divorce II.

We are about to have Abortion III soon.

just delay for a bit and then re-run the Referendum when it is clear that Brexit will be a disaster and the Brexiteers were lying about everything.

joe40

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Lots of Irish politicians have done it and gotten away with it:

Nice II, Lisbon II, Divorce II.

We are about to have Abortion III soon.

just delay for a bit and then re-run the Referendum when it is clear that Brexit will be a disaster and the Brexiteers were lying about
everything.

Those were all good decisions. Referendums are not a great way to decide complex issues. Parameters and opinions can change, so a new referendum is not necessarily anti democratic, especially in close contests.

Yurt123

I don't think Brexit is going to happen at all, they're all bluffing

Even when it came down to it Nigel Farage just walked away from politics after the Brexit vote because he didn't want to be held responsible for the ruination of the economy….

This whole Brexit thing is going to take a long time to play out, by the time people actually realise that it's not going to happen they'll feel a lot less pushed about it

topmanamillion

People saying that Brexit wont happen really don't understand British politics or the British outlook on the world.
A lot of British people just cant get their head around why everyone doesn't want to be British and why all those countries wanted to leave the empire.
Its a completely different outlook to Ireland where we are happy to be part of the collective and work as part of the EU.
The UK has always rowed against that from using their veto regularly to rejecting the Euro.

Yurt123

topmanamillion wrote: »

People saying that Brexit wont happen really don't understand British politics or the British outlook on the world.
A lot of British people just cant get their head around why everyone doesn't want to be British and why all those countries wanted to leave the empire.
Its a completely different outlook to Ireland where we are happy to be part of the collective and work as part of the EU.
The UK has always rowed against that from using their veto regularly to rejecting the Euro.

I totally agree with you but I think that hopefully Theresa May and the other MP's will manage to pull the wool over the eyes of the 52% of the people who voted to leave the EU, when/if it doesn't happen they'll all just blame eachother

topmanamillion

Yurt123 wrote: »

I totally agree with you but I think that hopefully Theresa May and the other MP's will manage to pull the wool over the eyes of the 52% of the people who voted to leave the EU, when/if it doesn't happen they'll all just blame eachother

Fair enough but I just cant see as scenario where its feasible.
All the rumblings from the EU heads have been they went a fast Brexit. Once article 50 is triggered in March and it will be triggered because of the parliamentary vote, they will be past the point of return regardless of the deal they negotiate.
Anyway, I think it would be untenable for Britain to return to the EU after all this. They`d be half in and half out.
Who`s to say they wouldn't turn around in 5 years time and have another Brexit over some perceived slight at EU level.
There`s also the precedent the likes of France, Holland and Italy with their large Euro sceptic contingent could take from it.
"Don't fancy implementing the latest EU directive? Simply vote out of the EU and wait for them to take you back."

Zubeneschamali

topmanamillion wrote: »

Who`s to say they wouldn't turn around in 5 years time and have another Brexit over some perceived slight at EU level.

Could happen, but equally I think it is more than possible they will be applying for re-entry in 10 years time.

But right now, today, they are headed for a cliff. Just because a non-binding referendum chose that path doesn't mean they won't swerve at the last minute when the drop is visible.

eeguy

joe40 wrote: »

Those were all good decisions. Referendums are not a great way to decide complex issues. Parameters and opinions can change, so a new referendum is not necessarily anti democratic, especially in close contests.

We have a tradition in Ireland of one side lying through their teeth on referendum posters to push their own agenda. They purposefully try to confuse the electorate with nonsensical arguments, emotive language and anecdotal stories.
Combined with people who just love to protest vote, and a majority who don't give a sh*te either way, you see why the government has to run referenda multiple times.

I see the forced abortions and EU army we'd all be conscripted into if Lisbon passed still hasn't come about:rolleyes:

topmanamillion

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Could happen, but equally I think it is more than possible they will be applying for re-entry in 10 years time.

But right now, today, they are headed for a cliff. Just because a non-binding referendum chose that path doesn't mean they won't swerve at the last minute when the drop is visible.

I don't buy this doomsday scenario. I think its fanciful thinking.
The culture of Britain is it will not return to the EU with a begging bowl.
There is no doubt the UK economy will slump due to the uncertainty surrounding a post Brexit environment and they have stunted their future growth.
However, they are the 5th largest economy in the world so they are capable of absorbing all that.

Zubeneschamali

eeguy wrote: »

We have a tradition in Ireland of one side lying through their teeth on referendum posters to push their own agenda. They purposefully try to confuse the electorate with nonsensical arguments, emotive language and anecdotal stories.
Combined with people who just love to protest vote, and a majority who don't give a sh*te either way, you see why the government has to run referenda multiple times.

But this is exactly what happened during the Brexit referendum. Lies and nonsense from the Brexit side, apathy from May and Corbyn, UKIP win with some tiny percentage of the vote.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

KyussBeeshope unbanned

Yurt123

topmanamillion wrote: »

I don't buy this doomsday scenario. I think its fanciful thinking.
The culture of Britain is it will not return to the EU with a begging bowl.
There is no doubt the UK economy will slump due to the uncertainty surrounding a post Brexit environment and they have stunted their future growth.
However, they are the 5th largest economy in the world so they are capable of absorbing all that.

No matter how big a given country's economy is, tearing up the trade deal that you have in place with the biggest trade bloc the world has ever seen and only expecting a slump in the economy is a bit of fanciful thinking in itself!


Would it be unfair to ask for a referendum in the UK to decide whether or not to go through with Brexit when the final deal however good or bad it is has been drawn up, only seems fair

Mal-Adjusted

Yurt123 wrote: »

Would it be unfair to ask for a referendum in the UK to decide whether or not to go through with Brexit when the final deal however good or bad it is has been drawn up, only seems fair

That's not how it works. Once A50 is triggered, that's it. They have 2 years to pack their bags and go. Negotiating a trade deal is a separate affair and will likely take far longer than two years if previous trade deals are anything to go by. A50 is irreversible it seems (pending a court challenge).

KyussBeeshop

Hmm. Restoring my post from earlier, assuming that's ok:

Sam Russell wrote: »

The EU is democratic in that it stands on the shoulders of the democratic Governments that give it its legitimacy.

That doesn't make something democratic.

Democratic governments can agree to a union, which when implemented, has a severe democratic deficit and traps many members into the union (under threat of massive economic damage).

The union can be undemocratic, even if the initial decision to implement it was made democratically.

stringed theory

Democratic governments can agree to a union, which when implemented, has a severe democratic deficit and traps many members into the union (under threat of massive economic damage).

The union can be undemocratic, even if the initial decision to implement it was made democratically.

Yes, but it is not undemocratic.  The European Union is about a large body of law that is obeyed in the great majority of cases, or at least to a sufficient extent to make for a functioning Union,  And every one of these  laws has been voted on and could be repealed.  It is just as democratic as any national parliament, in any large multicultural country. Can you explain why this isn't so?
The fact that one may ignore the legislative process, or pretend it doesn't exist, or simply not  recognize the legitimacy of  pan  European majorities as a matter of principle is a personal choice or prejudice.

Sam Russell

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

Hmm. Restoring my post from earlier, assuming that's ok:

That doesn't make something democratic.

Democratic governments can agree to a union, which when implemented, has a severe democratic deficit and traps many members into the union (under threat of massive economic damage).

The union can be undemocratic, even if the initial decision to implement it was made democratically.

The EU gets its democratic credentials from its members. Not all its members are that democratic. For example, the UK Government is run by a party that only got 37% of the popular vote, and only 1 MP in Scotland, none in NI, both of which voted to remain. So how democratic is that?

The EU is only as democratic as its member states. The UK has not been very well disposed towards the EU since it joined, demanding more and more opt-outs. It has also been governed by parties that have failed to get more than 50% of the popular vote for much of that time.

KyussBeeshop

stringed theory wrote: »

Yes, but it is not undemocratic.  The European Union is about a large body of law that is obeyed in the great majority of cases, or at least to a sufficient extent to make for a functioning Union,  And every one of these  laws has been voted on and could be repealed.  It is just as democratic as any national parliament, in any large multicultural country. Can you explain why this isn't so?
The fact that one may ignore the legislative process, or pretend it doesn't exist, or simply not  recognize the legitimacy of  pan  European majorities as a matter of principle is a personal choice or prejudice.

The EU is more than just its laws and legislature, it's made up of many different institutions as well as formal plus informal political groups, not to mention (for many of its countries) the Euro.
You can't just decide to revoke these institutions/groups power. No country can just repeal the Euro. That was a decision that once it was made, carries with it the threat of massive economic disruption, if you go back on it.

Effectively, now that they have been implemented, many of these institutions and structures within the EU, don't have much of a connection to the more democratically controlled parts of the EU.


The way the politics of EU works at a supra-national level, in deciding how to implement policy in response to the economic crisis, does not work in the way that it would in a national parliament either - as the need for unanimous agreement for some pan-European policies, grants countries an effective veto - allowing them to block necessary structural reforms at an EU level, which can hold many EU countries down, while allowing others to take advantage of the imbalance/disruption to boost their own relative power within the EU (the structure of the Euro is what usually takes the blame for the massive imbalance/disruption).

Effectively, individual countries can veto the will of the majority of EU governments and people. That's far from democratic.
We see this in the response to the economic crisis, and e.g. the significant power this grants Germany, in being able to narrow the scope of policy options we can undertake, to try and solve (or not solve...) the crisis.


One of the most frequently cited principles of democracy is that of sovereignty, and through the EU, member states have lost a significant degree of sovereign control over their own countries - some of this sovereignty has been 'pooled' (don't like that term myself) with democratic control at an EU level - some of it has been granted to EU institutions which have a poor connection to democratic control - and some of that sovereign control is just gone, e.g. policy options that used to exist at a national level, and no longer exist at all now due to the need for unanimous agreement at an EU level, and likely won't exist in the future without an EU-level government.

All of these are severe problems with the EU, that demonstrate an enormous lack of democratic control where it matters the most right now (principally our response to the economic crisis), and which frankly blasts a hole in the EU's democratic credentials.

All of these are principal reasons why the EU is slowly on the path to breaking up - it may take a very long time, but on this path it's more a matter of 'when' not 'if' - it's possible the EU may change path and implement genuine reform, though the last decade makes that look unlikely.

oscarBravo

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

Effectively, individual countries can veto the will of the majority of EU governments and people. That's far from democratic.

If the majority of EU member states voted to introduce a policy that was disastrous for Ireland, and we didn't have the ability to veto such a policy, would you be arguing in favour of such a decision on the grounds that it was "democratic"? Or would you hand-carve a different definition of "democratic" in order to condemn such a move?

The criticism of the EU on the grounds of being "undemocratic" is trite and silly. It's a supranational organisation; its members are nation-states who have agreed mechanisms for advancing their shared interests. If anything, it's way more democratic than any other such organisation, in that it has a directly-elected parliament.

One of the most frequently cited principles of democracy is that of sovereignty, and through the EU, member states have lost a significant degree of sovereign control over their own countries - some of this sovereignty has been 'pooled' (don't like that term myself) with democratic control at an EU level...

You seem to use the term "democracy" or "democratic" in an extremely fungible way, to suit whatever argument you're trying to make at the time.

What's wrong with the term "pooled sovereignty"? It's an accurate description. Sovereignty isn't ceded; that would imply that a country has relinquished all control over policy.

What term would you use instead of "pooled", and why?

sameoldname

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

The EU is more than just its laws and legislature, it's made up of many different institutions as well as formal plus informal political groups, not to mention (for many of its countries) the Euro.
You can't just decide to revoke these institutions/groups power. No country can just repeal the Euro. That was a decision that once it was made, carries with it the threat of massive economic disruption, if you go back on it.

Effectively, now that they have been implemented, many of these institutions and structures within the EU, don't have much of a connection to the more democratically controlled parts of the EU.


The way the politics of EU works at a supra-national level, in deciding how to implement policy in response to the economic crisis, does not work in the way that it would in a national parliament either - as the need for unanimous agreement for some pan-European policies, grants countries an effective veto - allowing them to block necessary structural reforms at an EU level, which can hold many EU countries down, while allowing others to take advantage of the imbalance/disruption to boost their own relative power within the EU (the structure of the Euro is what usually takes the blame for the massive imbalance/disruption).

Effectively, individual countries can veto the will of the majority of EU governments and people. That's far from democratic.
We see this in the response to the economic crisis, and e.g. the significant power this grants Germany, in being able to narrow the scope of policy options we can undertake, to try and solve (or not solve...) the crisis.


One of the most frequently cited principles of democracy is that of sovereignty, and through the EU, member states have lost a significant degree of sovereign control over their own countries - some of this sovereignty has been 'pooled' (don't like that term myself) with democratic control at an EU level - some of it has been granted to EU institutions which have a poor connection to democratic control - and some of that sovereign control is just gone, e.g. policy options that used to exist at a national level, and no longer exist at all now due to the need for unanimous agreement at an EU level, and likely won't exist in the future without an EU-level government.

All of these are severe problems with the EU, that demonstrate an enormous lack of democratic control where it matters the most right now (principally our response to the economic crisis), and which frankly blasts a hole in the EU's democratic credentials.

All of these are principal reasons why the EU is slowly on the path to breaking up - it may take a very long time, but on this path it's more a matter of 'when' not 'if' - it's possible the EU may change path and implement genuine reform, though the last decade makes that look unlikely.

It sounds like you're arguing for removal of national veto's while at the same time saying that its a bad thing that national governments can't set their own policies? Isn't that a bit contradictory?

When you say the response to the economic crisis blasts a hole in the EU's democratic credentials what exactly do you mean?

If you mean "German imposed austerity" which is what people generally mean when they talk about the EU's "democratic deficit", how many times does it need to be said; the Eurozone is not a transfer union. It never has been and unless the 27 nations agree to give up setting their own taxation and fiscal policies, it never will be.

What's more, every country in the Eurozone knew well in advance that this was the case. If they decided to erode their own competiveness while countries like Germany were practicing wage restraint that is their own fault.

Fixing the mess that is the southern European economies will take more than just a debt write off or stimulus spending. Those economies, especially Greece's are fundamentally broken. Give them a chance and they'll repeat the same mistakes and end up in the exact same situation in a few decades because it's politically and socially easier than dealing with the actual problem. That's true whether they're in the EU or not, Euro or not.

Part of the problem is the EU but only so far as because for as long as the EU exists people will expect it to be a lender of last resort, no matter if it is or not. They look to the EU to save them from a mess of their own making and then blame the EU for not throwing good taxpayer money after bad. All the while never actually bothering to make the necessary reforms.

BlinkingLights

eeguy wrote: »

We have a tradition in Ireland of one side lying through their teeth on referendum posters to push their own agenda. They purposefully try to confuse the electorate with nonsensical arguments, emotive language and anecdotal stories.
Combined with people who just love to protest vote, and a majority who don't give a sh*te either way, you see why the government has to run referenda multiple times.

I see the forced abortions and EU army we'd all be conscripted into if Lisbon passed still hasn't come about:rolleyes:

Nothing unique to Ireland about that! Brexit and the US Presidental Elections did it on an even more spectacular level. At least Ireland has a lot of checks and balances built into broadcast election coverage and has an actual referendum commission to attempt to ensure everyone plays fair. It doesn't always work but I think we do have more experience than the UK has of running referenda.

KyussBeeshop

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the majority of EU member states voted to introduce a policy that was disastrous for Ireland, and we didn't have the ability to veto such a policy, would you be arguing in favour of such a decision on the grounds that it was "democratic"? Or would you hand-carve a different definition of "democratic" in order to condemn such a move?

The criticism of the EU on the grounds of being "undemocratic" is trite and silly. It's a supranational organisation; its members are nation-states who have agreed mechanisms for advancing their shared interests. If anything, it's way more democratic than any other such organisation, in that it has a directly-elected parliament.

Your question is based on the EU using a different system, and the problem is that most politically practical systems short of a national EU government, introduce some level of democratic deficits.
Supranational organizations, are usually less democratic in their construction, than national governments - and I outlined many of the problems with the structure of the EU, beyond what you quoted.

National governments are far superior, democratically, than supranational organizations - wouldn't you agree?

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem to use the term "democracy" or "democratic" in an extremely fungible way, to suit whatever argument you're trying to make at the time.

Please quote an example, you don't back up this accusation. Do you disagree that sovereignty is an important and frequently cited part of democracy? If you don't, it's not clear what you're applying this accusation to.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's wrong with the term "pooled sovereignty"? It's an accurate description. Sovereignty isn't ceded; that would imply that a country has relinquished all control over policy.

What term would you use instead of "pooled", and why?

I think the term 'pooled sovereignty' can be a valid term for many of the areas of policymaking that the EU parliament has control over, but that in some areas it is not a valid term and masks the loss of control over policy, particularly in the areas I pointed out where necessary reform of EU policy is subject to veto's, and where areas of sovereign control have been handed over to institutions with a poor connection to democratic control.


Countries don't have to completely cede sovereign control over an area of policymaking, for that to have a severely negative effect on a countries democratic decision making either, as giving up partial control can have very complicated and unexpected restrictive effects on a countries sovereign control as time passes.

For example, joining the Euro and the EU level response to the economic crisis, has led to an enormous loss of control over the range of possible policy options we could take, in response to the economic crisis - far beyond what anyone imagined when we agreed to the single currency.
This was completely masked in the good times, when there was economic prosperity (built on unsound foundations - many of which were the unsound foundations of the Euro) - and the loss of democratic control only became apparent when crisis hit and as the crisis developed.

KyussBeeshop

sameoldname wrote: »

It sounds like you're arguing for removal of national veto's while at the same time saying that its a bad thing that national governments can't set their own policies? Isn't that a bit contradictory?

When you say the response to the economic crisis blasts a hole in the EU's democratic credentials what exactly do you mean?

If you mean "German imposed austerity" which is what people generally mean when they talk about the EU's "democratic deficit", how many times does it need to be said; the Eurozone is not a transfer union. It never has been and unless the 27 nations agree to give up setting their own taxation and fiscal policies, it never will be.

What's more, every country in the Eurozone knew well in advance that this was the case. If they decided to erode their own competiveness while countries like Germany were practicing wage restraint that is their own fault.

Fixing the mess that is the southern European economies will take more than just a debt write off or stimulus spending. Those economies, especially Greece's are fundamentally broken. Give them a chance and they'll repeat the same mistakes and end up in the exact same situation in a few decades because it's politically and socially easier than dealing with the actual problem. That's true whether they're in the EU or not, Euro or not.

Part of the problem is the EU but only so far as because for as long as the EU exists people will expect it to be a lender of last resort, no matter if it is or not. They look to the EU to save them from a mess of their own making and then blame the EU for not throwing good taxpayer money after bad. All the while never actually bothering to make the necessary reforms.

I point out national veto's, and I point out that short of a national EU government there will be a democratic deficit - but I'm not arguing for or against either of those things, only establishing that there is a democratic deficit.

The response to the economic crisis, shows that individual countries are able to effectively veto many of the necessary policy options that are required to resolve the crisis - thus severely limiting the range of policy options for resolving the crisis, especially compared to what countries could do prior to the Euro - and that this effectively creates an undemocratic structure within the EU, that has an enormously negative effect on many EU countries (and to the benefit of others, in terms of relative power).

EU-imposed austerity automatically means countries losing a significant degree of fiscal/taxation control, and I don't think turning the EU into a transfer zone is the only recovery policy.


See, your post actually acknowledges many of the fundamental structural flaws within the Euro, which is good - but also seems to imply that countries negatively affected by these flaws, just have to lump-it/put-up-with-it?
That kind of attitude seems prevalent in politics and discussion/defence of the EU, which is causing political division in EU nations and is dividing Europe - and which is likely to contribute to the EU's future breakup, unless it changes.

I agree that countries need individual reform too - but we are talking about democratic flaws within EU level institutions here.