- 6 Dec 2017
But the difference is the breakdown of the nation state within that election, rather than pooling the votes of a nation state (or state in the US) and creating larger blocs where countries (and large cities) can hold sway. It's a different idea to bring a measure of top to bottom accountability to a particularly undemocratic organisation.Doesn't sound all that different to the Commission/Council (one per country) and the Parliament (numbers allocated more-or-less proportionally, except slightly adjusted in favour of the smaller countries)? Anyway, going back to the original argument, this all seems a very technical and theoretical reason to object to the EU.
Unified tax policy and the potential of the Army - both entirely logical constructs with a single currency and lack of internal border - but seek to remove the decision making of the national state. Look at getting NATO members to commit to spending money!Who says? Brexiters often make claims like this, but does the EU really seek the end of the nation state? I think that claim is pretty far-fetched.
I only ask does being in the EU restrict our ability to do trade with places like India?I see no reason to think it does, no. Do you know of any EU mechanism that does limit economic growth, or trade with other countries - and can you explain how it works? And, perhaps more importantly, why? I don't see any logical reason why the EU would want to restrict the economies of its members, or why anyone sane would agree to it.
Because they have, in part, depressed economies who have limited spending power and high unemployment. Prolonged recessions affect prosperity.I don't really know what you mean by that. As we are not in the Euro, how are we affected by "the docile southern European economies"?