Because trade on its own proved insufficient to avoid total European and worldwide disaster before; and the world is far more global and interconnected than it was, where coherent federations hold an intrinsic advantage. Unless you enjoy totalitarian state capitalism, a regional bloc with economic and political ties and shared rule of law is your safest bet.
We can be coherent without the EU, that was my point, discussing an EU wide standard and all agreeing to it would be a big undertaking but it's not necesarily one that requires a government ontop of a government ontop of a government. We've traded for years before and there's no reason it can't be done as it's done in the EU without the EU government forcing everything else. For example freedom of movement is a completely separate issue to our trade levies and standards so it has no reason to be part and parcel of access to the bloc. It's obvious there are other things the EU promote but my argument is that although you may like the entire package it's not necessarily needed to gain access to the trade benefits.
If so, then why is the Out crowd having such a difficulty putting it in words, let alone in writing, and agreeing on what it is they want to achieve? Surely if it is staring everyone in the face, they can bash it out over a few pints and have it done by Friday?
I assume they're busy trying to get out of everything the EU is forcing them into before they renegotiate an entire europe wide trade policy. I actually assume it to be rather difficult and take a while but regardless of that I feel we're better off working to something similar (even if not as robust) that then doesn't destroy the voice of the people. The problem with the EU is that for UK citizen to vote in our government and then rely on them to have to feel like they have no power either and are just in another voting process within the EU feels like it's democracy distilled, democracy taken away from the people and put squarely into new more hard to penetrate places that makes your average citizen feel squeezed out. It's not the most forthcoming way to be open because it feels like any policy your average citizen wants has to go through several more channels (such as the negotiations we have with tusk being potentially useless as even governnments then have to delegate any agreemant to the EU council).
No one is saying make our own rules but it's just a matter of what kidn of flexibility we have in that regard. The EU seems like a train where once the tracks have been laid you're not going to get them to move whereas a car can go down many more roads. It's got it's benefits but it's also got it's detractions in how single countries are basically unable to manage any reasonable and beneficial changes (such as our inability to close off benefits, health tourism, taxation etc.). If the EU picks a bad policy (regardless of if we agreed on it or not) a train wreck hits harder than a car crash. I understand you're pro EU and I like what it does for us as well but I don't believe there's no criticism to be had of it.
Name some examples of your potential catastrophes.
EU's level of democracy, accountability and reporting to citizenry is comparable to that of its most developed member states. It's not perfect, but much preferable to war or the ever-shifting web-work of state-to-state alliances that was par for the course in the Modern era.
EU's security and crime intelligence sharing arrangements are in place and firing on all cylinders; helping us tackle extremism, spies, market rigging and networks of organised crime.
Well freedom of movement poses a massive danger to countries like the UK should poor citizens from within the EU (east european, greece thanks to failure of EU to manage that situation and economic migrants / refugees who become EU citizens over time). After all we've seen a million people in germany alone, should there be any sort of natural disaster within EU or war break out (russia / china / middle eastern extremism like Isis) then yeah we could see floods of people with no controls which can require heavy resources and massive backlashes. Not to mention freedom of movement and the EU polciing (despite your assurances) doesn't seem to have helped at all in regards to the prewarnings we had with Isis saying they would flood us with Jihadi soldiers and overwhelm our countries with refugees. I don't believe in it blindly and don't give in to racism but there is always a potential for the culture clash within muslim religious extremism (already an issue thanks to sharia courts, cover ups like rotherham and sheffield rapes etc.) to be fanned by any intervention we make and set ablaze tensions between our cultural differences that liberal policies simply do not respect or rightfully interven to prevent (such as the situation with blacks in America). Although it's not likely to become a huge issue it's just best to not ignore things already occurring and problems that could be come worse. Not to mention despite your faith in the regard I've seen little to no success in regards to EU wide crackdowns on criminal organisations and freedom of movement can potentially benefit them crime gangs.
While you say EU is fairer in how it is elected it is still nonetheless further from the people and more and more behind closed doors. Any wrong policy made is still far harder for your average citizen to get any changes made as even protesting to your local MEP is not enough, no EU country has reversed an EU law and no EU law is changed by one country and requires more effort to get changes made by convincing 27 other countries that could have different opinions (especially if the laws that are a problem effect only your country). The EU has a problem where few seem willing to be flexible or care if it isn't an issue that effects there own people. When citizens have to convince there government of a problem, to then convince the mep it's a problem, to then convince the EU it's a problem and then have to have a council metting or whatnot and hope that goes right it's just VERY difficult to make intricate changes because the one glove fits all policy of the EU makes handling minor issues (like taxation) difficult and based on an outward perspective rather than and further removed from local interest. It's a diplomacy within a diplomacy within a diplomacy and that is a mirage in some instances or a maze of interests in others like trying to spot a picture within a kaleidoscope. The more paths and people you must go through to get your voice heard the less likely it is to be fair to the your average citizen. One other point that some might not consider a 'catastrophe' is that the education system seems to be going down the pan. After all with a huge over reliance on simply importing talent from elsewhere we seem to be poorly investing in education within our own country and by not breeding any home grown talent we do get economic benefits but we are technically forcing our own citizens into lower end positions (or at least the majority) which is creating a disadvantaged situation for our own people.
And you would rather have no enforceable common rational standards?
Well considering from the start I have stated I am wanting us to have enforcable and open standards but just with it being closer to the ground rather than a the risk of having levies be simply weighed against our domestic needs and control of policy (i.e. I like the EU approach but would rather sacrifice some part of the economic benefit for the flexibilities in domestic policy as I believe these will pay us back with smart policy anyway). If the fact that the EU has already shown some failure in management of greece doesn't show they aren't necessarily always right then it's a bit worrying. I know your pro EU and that's cool as there is a lot to like about it but the fact you hate the idea of any compromise and the idea of any potential control being closer to our side is a bit worrying. I'm not saying smash it all to pieces or play funny games and presume to get the benefits without following the rules but surely there is somewhere it can be negotiated).
You seem to have some strange fear of independence for countries and I agree it's better to be in a bloc but the question is at what compromise. I don't agree with the current level (as do a lot of people not agree, hence the reason a lot are mad at the poor level of compromise displayed by the EU negotiations with cameron). Despite any fear you may have I am not all that anti-EU, I simply feel a greater level of compromise is needed and control in domestic policy. That change alone would be enough (even if some rules like human rights and freedom of movement were ultimately kept as unchangeable). I respect they have some policies they believe are necessary but they seem to think every policy is necessary and nothing should be in the peoples control. That's the problem, you say it's not impossible with diplomacy but it's already been proven that no law has ever been reversed the EU has set up and the TTIP thing although going back to the drawing board is still early stages and not set yet. I'd like to see how that plays out a little more (as we've seen policies simply go in circles until they are accepted before in other governments and could end up the same). Germany challenged some elements of TTIP but that doesn't mean they'll challenge all bad parts or it'll end up as effective as we hope. I'll give that one a bit more time before pronouning it as an effective example. I agree with you on a lot of points but it's just a simple distinction in what level of control and how far removed it should be from the people.
