Every time I am in Brussels I suffer from the same torn emotion based on the idea of 'if only': if only the aim had been closer union, but not ever closer union and if only the idea had been freer movements of people and capital, and not free movement of either.
What then, I always want to ask? Wouldn't we be so much better off now? Wouldn't embracing the reality of compromise which is what really typifies Europe have been so much better if wrapping it up in the language of absolutes had not happened?
I suspect we'll never know. The language of the ideologues on which the EU was founded suits some all too well now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I think the worst thing about the EU is that it was designed from the start to be undemocratic. The European Commission and ECB are unelected. The European Parliament is elected (and by a fairer system than the one used for Westminster elections) but has only limited powers. I would be in favour of moving to a Euro-federalist model with the European Parliament as the main decision-making body, abolishing the Commission and having an elected European Government instead. However this would be in conjunction with substantial delegation of policy areas to national governments. Unless reforms can be accomplished along these lines I think there is actually a reasonably strong case for leaving the EU. The problem is that the main people saying “we want to leave the EU” are UKIP – for the most part a motley crew of extreme right wingers. It’s a desperate state of affairs.
Desperate, indeed