Could you please give us more detail? Could you please point how what these "most of" money uses are, why the amounts are not justified, and what you suggest they're alternatively used for, in what amounts, and why?

And if not, could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments?

All the "good" they do, the nations states themselves could do as well. You don't get magic with things like this, you only get waste and the irresistable pursuit of its own existence, more money and more power.

There is no union in that sense. Most member states hate each other and use the EU to abuse the others.

I don't see how legislation like for instance GDPR could be pushed through by individual nation states. Judging from your comments this might be preferable to you, but I still think it is a step in the right direction overall.

I can accept that opinions on whether GDPR or other multinational legislation is a good thing can vary. But there are things that nations have agreed on outside of institutions like the EU or the UN. So these things are not off the table.

So you were hoping that someone can make any claim with no support and everyone else must scramble to prove them wrong? The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. More so when making such a bold statement. Otherwise it would make for some very unpleasant conversations where people just maliciously throw around any accusation that comes to mind.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/eu-budget/documents/publi...

https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/annualreports-2...

Perhaps on reddit it cuts it to ask for the burden of proof to be provided by someone else, but on HN in a concise rebuttal with counter proof is what works.

No neximo64, if you want a civilized discussion you can't encourage people to throw around worthless statements and accusation and then sit back, pretend everyone else must scramble and provide "a concise rebuttal", and imagine you must be right because nobody had the time to waste.

The only reasons to adopt this "drop a bomb and let the others firefight" strategy is if you're here exclusively to troll, or you're simply unable to support any of your statements. This makes for very low quality conversation.

This way discussions don't turn into an avalanche of drivel, insults, and fake news while everyone expects someone else to be their babysitter and prove them wrong.

I'm sorry but it does require proof, both ways. If you follow a particular political view of course everything you seem to think is the right view very conveniently supports that political viewpoint. When it opposes your viewpoint I'd would be great to see how you shift opinion drastically.

Again, this is not reddit. Citation needed, for every viewpoint.

Could you please give us more detail? Could you please point how what amount of money from the EU is spent well? Could you please detail for every bit of spending on how it was not wasted and prove what it accomplished? And if not, could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments?

Here is the 2018 audit:

https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/annualreports-2...

Please read it in full before posting any further questions as it likely answers all of them, and insufficient references to existing and public documentation simply hiders the speedy resolution of your concern.

Most of the EU budget goes to big agrobusinesses. However, the proposed purpose is propping up the "small farmers". However, small farmers are the most disadvantaged by the EU subsidizing big ag. Also, external effects like empoverishing Africa's farmers by flooding the market with heavily subsidized EU produce.

Considering we're now in a global pandemic with trade breaking apart I'm actually rather glad that there's subsidized local agriculture to keep Europe from running out of food.

You should look at this from a military rather than a commercial point. The idea is Europe should always be able to feed itself, even if major trading partners disappear. Propping up local farmers, large and small, is the idea.