To be for or against the European Union, that is the question yes? This is no small question and there are a major of reasons why I fall into the category of Yes-voters for the EU. Others have already pointed out about the historical context so I’ll add som additional information to the discussion.
First of all I’d like to discuss your view on politics. You say that you’re a Social Democrat, from what country? There’s quite a difference between the Nordic models, Central/Southern European and Anglo models. As of now, I’ll presume you’re from one of the Nordic countries and are aware of how their models work. What in God’s name has made your friend lean towards communism/anarchy? The two are quite different and it would be ironic calling oneself a communist as well as anarchist. Both of these models aren’t the answer to a healthy nation and I would suggest that your friend pick up a book instead of listening to punk rock and reading glorified propaganda about communism.
The EU is not the largest reason why we haven’t been at war with each other. The reason is that the US and Soviet’s were armed to the teeth and no one wanted a full-scale war again. Operation Unthinkable would for an example tear apart whatever was left of western Europe, the atomic bombs would be dropped on present-day St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev instead of Japan and ferocious Soviet troops would devastate central Europe. No one would win WWIII. Obviously it’s a bit more complex than what can be explained in a paragraph, but no nation could afford going to war again, thus Europe was spared a third massacre.
When it comes to the question at hand, yes I am for the European Union. The EU’s prime directive was to facilitate trade within the Unions countries, this has since the 50’s evolved into a much larger entity than what was probably anticipated. Whilst the EU hasn’t governed over what political ideology a country should follow, they advice their nations to follow the ‘best amongst them’. So to speak, whichever country has the best distribution of resources in public schools, follow that countries example. If another nation has the best system for retirement homes, use that model. Whilst I do not mind this approach, and am aware that there has been little to no interest in attempting to unify the EU under one political banner; I would personally like to see a future where the EU is united under one constitution. The problem with this and why it cannot be achieved in a nearby future is that the countries differ too much when it comes to the distribution of a nations resources. What does every country have in common with one another? Whats the one topic that keeps coming back in any political discussion? Welfare!
The nordic models are known for strong social democratic models where public services are used by all citizens, no matter what class they belong to. The system promotes class equality and a high public standard at the cost of high taxes. The system was not built for just the weak, but for everyone. The liberal welfare system in England is quite the opposite. It set’s a standard that everyone has a right to, but if you ever feel like you want more social political rights you have to rely on your job to provide those rights to you. That train of thought is just not present in the north. The conservative model found in countries such as France promote a combination of state, corporations and church as the distributors of welfare. This touches very roughly the difference between political entities and is one of the prime reasons why we won’t see any sort of political unification, for now. I hope that some day we’ll be one, populistic right-wing/left-wing parties die down, welfare-models are jointly developed, merging into some hybrid between the liberal and social-democratic model. The nordic countries couldn’t compete with the liberal and conservative nations, thus the social-democratic parties had to let loose their strains on welfare and corporations in order to secure the health of the economy and their people. The liberal models are glancing at the Scandinavians in order to enhance social political rights. The conservatives are in a similar situation where reforms will be needed in particularly southern Europe to guarantee a stable future. Whatever happens in the future, whether or not we unite under one banner or decide to remain sovereign nations co-existing in a union is not clear. The idea of the EU will never go away. The name might be replaced, countries might leave or join but mark my words the EU won’t dissolve. It’s too big to fail.
TLDR: Sorry if I’ve rambled on and if my post lacks a common theme, but I’ve tried to type up something readable which is hard when my damn house is being renovated, I cannot keep a thought for more than a few moments before I’m disrupted by the sound of machinery and panic. Discussing politics, economy and the future of unions isn’t as straightforward as ‘should the EU exist - yay or nay?’. This is the sort of stuff that I write about for pages and pages, discuss for hours and hours. It’s laughable to suggest that we’ll lose the EU. If stuff is unclear I can provide a more thorough explanation. I’m not sure even if I’ve answered your question but here; For the EU: - Trade (economics) - Integration - Border liberation - Social liberation - Political similarities - No-war - Cultural similarities in contrast to BRIC and US.
What I’d like to happen: - Social Political equality - Political stability - Welfare equality - Cultural integration