You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

6
-2

[–] Cuttwood [S] 6 points -2 points (+4|-6) ago 

Well yes, but that's the whole point no? That's how I see it: I'm willing to give something up for the collective good. I never had a war in my liftetime but I understand before the EU there were quite a lot of conflicts.

One guy above I think put it differently:

In my experience looking into the EU politics from an outsider perspective (I'm in the US), it seems that what is good for an individual country is ignored in preference of the collective EU.

He puts it as something negative, but that's what I see as being the positive. I may be biased, I'm eastern European.

0
11

[–] RonaldMcShitlord 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Well yes, but that's the whole point no?

You're acknowledging that "the whole point" of the EU is to reduce individual countries' sovereignty, yet you pretend you don't understand why people are against this? Seriously dumbass? Are you just playing dumb or trolling?

0
3

[–] Gorillion 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Member for 1.5 years. Only 65 ccp. "Long supporter of Voat".

He's playing the "Gee Whiz, why everybody so angry!??" naif. It's such a big subject that he's hoping to catch people with their pants down trying to figure out a way to talk it all down to a level a child could understand. And when they reply in simplistic terms, he then suddenly gets very detail oriented with his come-backs. Which they're not mentally prepared for.

No idea what this sort of rhetorical tactic is called, but I've seen it before. It's a form of narrative theater used by hit-and-run shills. It's supposed to seed doubt before people's brains kick into gear and the last several years worth of damning data on the EU starts flooding in from their long term memory. Most people's short term memories don't hold that volume of information for instant recall, and it takes awhile to shift from one to the other.

0
11

[–] 8675761? 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

NO that's not the whole point, we never voted for that fucking shit, we voted against and got it anyway

0
6

[–] DietCokehead1 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

What "collective good" have they actually provided? They've only provided collective shittyness.

0
4

[–] fortuitouslyunfallen 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I understand what you're saying but you didn't personally give anything up. I assume that you are young enough that the EU has always been in place. So you saying that you were willing to give up something that you never really had is a bit disingenuous and comes across as virtue signalling. Yes I think that the EU post-WWII was a good thing in that it instilled peace and may have prevented further major conflicts, but I don't know enough about history to be sure about that point. The problem that I have with the EU is that a) it is a step toward globalization and may begin aggressively promoting open borders, which will severely undermine the sovereignty of individual countries. Which is already beginning to happen in certain states, but I am unsure of the EU's involvement directly. b) there is never an equal say between nations and funnily enough states with less people technically have more say on a per person basis. It's like NATO, the US give the most money, and in return they expect to have the most say. So some nations can be pushed to the side and their issues glossed over in lieu of the 'greater good'. The problem is when the greater good begins slipping, where does it end? The US and other nations have undermined greatly civil liberties in the name of the 'greater good' but it hasn't and never will equalize with the security benefits. I.e. a complete loss of liberty will not make us 100% safe, because that's not how it works.