Who do you think makes these rules and laws in the EU? Belgians? Reptilians?

It's the elected by the people of each country and the appointed by those elected by the people of each country.

EU is not a subscription provided by 3rd parties, EU is about coordination between the the European countries and any country can veto. That's actually why EU is considered slow and inefficient in some areas.

If EU says no more cash payments over 10K EUR, that means all the member countries agree that no more cash payments over 10K EUR.

> Who do you think makes these rules and laws in the EU? Belgians? Reptilians?

Germany and France, mostly.

> European countries and any country can veto. That's actually why EU is considered slow and inefficient in some areas.

First of all, this is not true. There’s no single party veto on legislation. Secondly, the US states have an even more effective veto, which is just ignoring federal law, because nobody can force them to enforce it.

And having no single-party veto on legislation means that if you’re from a smaller EU country, you’ll never EVER have any meaningful impact on _anything_.

> If EU says no more cash payments over 10K EUR, that means all the member countries agree that no more cash payments over 10K EUR.

As explained before, nope. It’s true that there is single-party veto on certain things (admissions to the Union itself, the eurozone, or schengen, but not for legislation)

So you believe that your country politicians were all into large cash payments but the French and the Germans are making you go digital?

Which country may I ask?

In my country cash payments over €8k were already banned, but it’s a largely unenforced law.

And how is that EU’s fault and what makes you think that your politicians were loving the large cash payments but Germany and France made them ban >10K EUR payments?

Which country again?

Latvia

So you think that Latvia, which has 8K EUR cash limit, is forced by be Germany and France to not allow cash payments over 10K EUR and you are dreaming of the destruction of EU so you can do above 10K EUR cash transactions? Are you counting on Latvia not enforcing its own laws for that? What’s your reasoning here?

The law is stupid. Just because Latvia has a similar law doesn’t make it any less stupid.

Sure but how exactly Germany and France are making Latvia impose 10K limit when Latvia already has 8K limit and what makes you think that abolishment of EU would make Latvia allow over 10K?

EU citizen here. You are not representative. The EU is an incredible boon to civil rights, national wealth and our consumer protections are enviable.

And huge disparity between south, east and west, discrimination, worker exploitation, systemic racism against europe’s minorities, human trafficking and cross border corruption, policies made to serve some countries and not others, and those european countries not within the eu or affiliated effectively isolated.

> systemic racism against europe’s minorities, human trafficking and cross border corruption, policies made to serve some countries and not others

You are describing the USA.

Here in europe even trying to humanise the roma can be an issue. Those people are so discriminated against that even defending them is looked down upon. Entire countries are maligned simply because they have a large number of this minority. No ethnic group in the us is as discriminated as these folks are in europe. America has not known such racism since the end of slavery.

Corruption is well obvious. See ursula, the head of the ecb and so on.

The EU is a boon for the mercantile class. It's by design... ;-)

It lifted my country as well as dozens of others out of developing world status. There's a huge delta in national wealth between post soviet nations who joined the EU and those that didn't for example. A rising tide raises all boats.

Your reply sounds like a cheerleader chant. :D Did the common person benefit from this "lift" that you mention or merely the technocrat who was willing to do the bidding of the new master?

Yes, it lifted everyone. Take a look into any stat on minimum/median salary, standard of living, HDI in any Central or Eastern European country that joined the EU against those that didn't - the gulf is massive. Also having lived in one such country before and after joining - yes, the EU helped lift everyone upwards.

The eastern europe will lose the most in long run, because the EU caused a massive brain drain.

For the west it’s just a matter of money. The demographic crisis in the east is real.

The demographic crisis is real in the Eastern European countries not in the EU (Western Balkans, former USSR) too, but at least the standard of living has massively improved in the EU member states.

"Eastern" Europe shouldn't exist, it should be just Europe. How is there a demographic crisis in the east?

> How is there a demographic crisis in the east?

Net emigration & a fertility rate of 1.7 is what I’d call “demographic crisis”

> The EU is an incredible boon to civil rights

We don’t even have a true right to free speech. That puts us behind the U.S., because I struggle to think of a “civil right” that we have but Americans don’t.

And before you pull “healthcare”, first of all, it’s got nothing to do with the EU, and secondly, in most EU countries the state-funded healthcare is so abysmal that everyone who can afford it still takes out private insurance.

> and our consumer protections are enviable.

Like GDPR, which is a legislation so fantastic that for most businesses it’s physically impossible to truly comply with it?

> We don’t even have a true right to free speech. That puts us behind the U.S., because I struggle to think of a “civil right” that we have but Americans don’t.

> And before you pull “healthcare”, first of all, it’s got nothing to do with the EU, and secondly, in most EU countries the state-funded healthcare is so abysmal that everyone who can afford it still takes out private insurance.

So free speech is an EU matter but healthcare is a local one? No, both are decided locally with limited EU oversight - e.g. the EU is trying to punish Poland and Hungary's free speech limitations.

> We don’t even have a true right to free speech

Specifically this is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Legislation prohibiting antisemitic speech doesn't make free speech not "truly free", it just makes it not absolute, which is IMO necessary for a civilised developed society, as long as there are controls to ensure it's not abused.

> Like GDPR, which is a legislation so fantastic that for most businesses it’s physically impossible to truly comply with it?

Why do you think that? The majority of business comply with it.

In terms of civil rights we have more than Americans - abortions (in most places, not an EU but local thing), the right not to get murdered by poor policing or overarmed population, consumer protections such as mandatory minimum warranties and return periods. Also there are much better employee and tenant protections.

Also a much better political and judicial system - first past the post? Politically appointed judges?

All in all, the EU is a marvelous thing that has enabled peace and prosperity across a continent, and has done far more good than bad - universal phone chargers, consumer protections at every level (flight delays, warranties, data), the new forced interoperability between gatekeepers, the euro and SEPA, the subsidies that have enabled so much development. Anyone rooting against it probably doesn't understand it all that well, or is an isolationist.

> Also a much better political and judicial system - first past the post? Politically appointed judges?

Much better judicial system? What about not having jury trials is better?

Without having a jury that decides your fate makes the entire process political.

Politically appointed judges? That’s just federal, in the US most state judges are elected. The DA is an elected office. In virtually all european countries they are all appointed offices. Appointed by the politicians in charge.

Justice system in most EU countries absolutely sucks compared to the US. In several EU countries there’s no concept as double jeopardy, because the prosecution can appeal an acquital.

I’d much rather be a defendant in the US, than in any EU country.

> So free speech is an EU matter but healthcare is a local one? No, both are decided locally with limited EU oversight - e.g. the EU is trying to punish Poland and Hungary's free speech limitations.

ECJ explicitly stated that objectionable or hate speech can be banned. So yes, that made it EU matter.

As for the EU doing something about Polands and Hungary’s disobedience? They don’t actually seem to be doing anything, because the EU as an institution is completely impotent, and they can’t risk being tough on their member states, for the Union could actually disintegrate. UK proved that is, in fact, physically possible to leave the EU. So Hungary could do that too, and so could Poland.

> Appointed by the politicians in charge.

I am not sure where you got this idea. In Italy most judges/DAs go through a selection process that is entirely within the judiciary. Only one third of the Constitutional Court is appointed by the Parliament.

> judicial system

- SIM card registration in nearly every member state

- No exclusionary rule in many member states (evidence obtained illegally is admissible in court)

- A "warrant" in the American sense is confined to a set of specific locations that the police think are tied to criminal activity but in many member states are much more general and open for abuse

- Mandatory data retention (until the ECJ struck it down)

- Mandatory key disclosure laws in many member states

- No option of trial by jury in some member states

- Guilt by association crimes in some member states ("mafia-type association" in Italy)