> [WS:] But that is an entirely different argument. I do not think that
> anyone here was claiming that everything id peachy in the EU, and certainly
> not me. But arguing that things in EU are not as good as they should or
> could have been does not lead to the conclusion that EU is a problem and
> should be eliminated.
I have no problem, and neither would most of the anti-EU left, with reframing the argument to say that the EU should be completely overhauled so that it actually serves the interests of working people. Of course, that's as likely to happen as it being eliminated - probably less likely in fact. The reason we keep getting in this argument is because people here, mostly people who are not based in Europe, keep insisting that it actually *does* serve those interests or at least it mostly does, and to the extent that it doesn't those are either only minor concerns or ones that could be addressed by minor reforms. When in fact they're fundamental to the EU's very existence, and it's the benefits to the worker that are incidental.
Of course this isn't the same thing as arguing that the EU is the whole problem and if it just collapsed everything would be fine. But the fact that Europe is essentially controlled by an economic (and increasingly political and military) union which is dedicated to advancing the interests of capital *is* an obstacle to achieving the interests of the working class. How could it not be?