[x5n1]

Yes right now. This can be fixed without giving up sovereignty. Many things that the EU is supposed to be solve can be solved via individual treaties. There is no need to give away the farm to get small benefits. At the end of the day the world is better off without conglomeration of power. Any of them are a bad idea. Individual treaties for problem points are the way to go.

[nickbauman]

Except the EU charter expressly forbids Britain from making trade agreements with individual member states. So Britain will have to negotiate trade deals with the union as a whole anyway. Vie La Difference ?

[Scirra_Tom]

Conglomeration of power is very useful in some situations. For example, global environmental problems.

Have one conglomerate force everyone to do better. If each country acted independently, each country is incentivised to not think about the bigger picture and act in their own short term interests.

This was my main reason for voting in.

[genzoman]

I do not live in Europe, but this line struck me: "force everyone to do better". Which I interpret as you can't make decisions on your own, big daddy government must make those decisions for you.

[mioelnir]

The EU forces a minimum standard for you have to implement, correct. Like not pumping unfiltered sewage into a freshwater reservoir, giving a damn about air pollution, non-toxic children's toys etc.

These are not made-up examples.

[masklinn]

> The EU forces a minimum standard for you have to implement, correct. Like not pumping unfiltered sewage into a freshwater reservoir, giving a damn about air pollution, non-toxic children's toys etc.

And it's not just health or industrial standards, the EU forces a bunch of legal and human rights onto countries as well, many EU countries have gotten repeatedly and rightfully dinged over various deficiencies.

[ncallaway]

No, it's a recognition of the tragedy of the commons. If there is a super-entity that regulates the commons you get better results for every individual.

If each entity acts in their own self-interest — which nations very regularly do — then you get worse results for every individual.

[Scirra_Tom]

Yep, sometimes government can be a force for good you know. I'm assuming your from the US (that's where I generally find the "big daddy government" rhetoric mainly comes from).

[x5n1]

It can go the other way as well. If you have a large conglomeration of power it's easy for a few people with capital to take over and make all the rules and potentially destroy the environment. See the United States for an example of this, especially in terms of fracking. People who don't necessarily suffer due to bad policy but profit from it.

For instance this quote from the Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_Un... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_Un... "A majority of the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board advised the EPA to scale back proposed toxity testing of fracking chemicals, and not pursue development of tracer chemicals to be added to frack treatments, because of time limitations. Chesapeake Energy agreed with the recommendation."

Conglomerations of power benefit people with power the most. That can be a positive or a negative depending on what policies those people want to pursue.