[MarcusBrutus]

It most definitely is and it takes a very starry eyed sort of person to expect otherwise. The idea that 20 or so different people with different languages, religions, mores, histories, frames of reference, economies could somehow achieve monetary or much less political union under the rule of an un-elected and un-accountable bureaucracy of "commissioners" who rule by means of "directives" (you couldn't make it sound more soviet-y even if you tried) was beyond ludicrous from day 1. A modest trade union with some freedom of movement for qualified workers was achievable and maybe in the end it will settle to just that. In fact I think the soviety approach to building the whole thing ensured its demise. Diverse people can collaborate productively and profitably under win-win free market arrangements. But in the EU system there's too many zero-sum games being constantly played and decided on a purely political level (rather than by market forces) and that creates a lot of bad blood pretty quickly. The reluctance of Germans to bail out southern Europeans is just an instance of that.

[kuschku]

> un-elected and un-accountable bureaucracy

So tell me, what is this? http://i.imgur.com/zhVYPwN.jpg

And what is this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhafgcPeXes

Or is it maybe actually elected, actually held accountable?

> The idea that 20 or so different people with different languages, religions, mores, histories, frames of reference, economies could somehow achieve monetary or much less political union

Aha, so how did the US do it? By the time it was formed, not even half of the people spoke a common language (There was quite a large amount of German and French immigrants in those days), it was full of groups with different religions and traditions.

[MarcusBrutus]

The US did it by virtue of it being a lot more homogeneous when it was first created. Last time I checked they didn't need any translators when they were debating the constitution, nor is the US constitution printed in 17 official translations like all EU documents and treaties are. Also, most people actually came to these shores having nothing but bad memories (if not outright contempt) for the countries they left behind and they were eager to embrace a new identity. The new land had a dominant cultural identity and they quickly aligned to it. Finally, the experience of the revolutionary war and a few more major wars down the road helped with "bonding" - to use a cute phrase. None of above conditions hold for Europe. The French are not eager to shun their national character and start speaking German and the last time they went to war they fought against the Germans and the Italians, not alongside them.

Additionally, crossing the Atlantic served as a filter to select only those people that were truly desirous of becoming Americans. Disgruntled EU voters have the nasty habit of lingering around.

[CamperBob2]

By the time it was formed, not even half of the people spoke a common language

Are you counting Native Americans? I've never heard this before.

[matteuan]

First "un-elected and un-accountable bureaucracy" is wrong. The parliament is elected directly and the decision-making is not less democratic than any other member state. Some problems and an example do not make the EU a failure. The economical and social advantages of EU have been already significant. If you were not the 'sophisticate' troll that I think you are, I would have spend more time trying to explaining you this.

[rbanffy]

I keep having to point out that most of the criticism is based on false information and propaganda. The EU has done a really poor job with informing the public how it works.

[alphonsegaston]

I'd argue the exact opposite is true: an absence of strong centralized authority will be its undoing. The competing powers in the world, China, Russia, and the United States, are all organized around subsuming diverse social, economic, and geographic groups beneath centrally organized power. This allows them to amass tremendous resources towards pursuing their narrowly focused geopolitical agendas, and outcompete independent states or smaller coalitions. Despite how comforting nationalism can seem, the reality is that no one member of the EU is capable of independently resisting threats to their sovereignty from one of these groups. Any reprieve from "oppressive bureaucracy" is going to be eventually undone by a loss of autonomy from an outside force. It's not starry eyed, but a cold, cynical choice about the bigger thing to which you're going to belong.

[walterstucco]

Tu quoque bruto filii mi

I mean traitor