Euro Rant found in a message

I was sent a Euro bashing opinion piece in a message - I do know who sent it but I don't know it's origin. Just looking to see if it is fact based or rhetoric.

The overall passage reads like a speech or lecture with paragraphs starting with But, And, So "I think not" , Now and Also. The article looks like an extract from a longer set of lectures as it starts right out with three assumptions taken as fact.  Writing what you speak does not necessarily become wrong but often becomes less convincing when taken out of it's broader context.

In the text content there are lots of opinions, incorrect assertions,  co-joining of fact with unsupported allegation, statements of policy without examples and inflammatory rhetoric.  Plenty of use of "They" without definition of who they are. The piece also (strangely) praises a core achievement of the EU.

Overall quite a poor piece of anti-eu rhetoric that says in essence the "See how I say that EU is like the USSR. It therefore must be bad." Very similar (unsubstantiated) arguments about poor tiered governments could be made about the USA state and federal levels but would be no more valid.  The historical development of USSR, EU & USA multilevel governments all come from different contexts and have different democratic checks and balances.

> "It controls without any possibility of opposition by representation of the people."

The author seem unaware of the EU parliament and it's oversight and scrutiny role. The poor performance of this institution in many of it's budgetary and representative duties does however explain some level of discontent with the EU.  Partly explained by this quote From 2014  "Only one in 10 UK voters say they can name a member of the European parliament in their region, and even fewer have ever contacted one".  The worsening voter turn out leading directly to poor accountability.

The complexity and decades taken to build multi-tiered governments precludes a single malevolent mind. The USSR and unmentioned China, with their expansionist policies, came about from the brutality of the post WWII dictators Stalin & Mao continued on by an un-accountable elites. Those governments in no way compare to the EU that was built from democratic governments cooperating and trying to build the world into a better place. To assert that an elite can take power unwillingly from elected representative parliaments is no better than ranting against the illuminati.

The Cato Institute has a much better considered EU critique from 2016.

For me this cartoon sums up Brexit.....

If only the EU had done more things like abolishing mobile phone roaming charges across the EU and not taken decades to act on structural problems such as the :

• Decimation of fisheries by dumping of "out of quota" fish  
• Slowness to reform the CAP spending money to subsidise wine, cheese and milk over production
• Greece budget. 

 The size of the EU budget and how member states spend that money, inevitably leads to accusations of wastage and "pork barreling"

I do feel conflicted, the more you look to see how the EU operates and fails to resolve problems the worse the EU becomes but casting ourselves out of the club on unresolved term is probable madness. Thinking that leaving the EU will engender positive change, as opposed to working to improve the club from the inside, is futile and classic lazy political thinking. 

========= The Text ( it's a bit shallow and unsubstantiated )  ==========

"Worth a read: Over the last couple of days, you have heard me say talk of The European Union.

I have spoken about how it came into existence, without the consent of the people it would govern, through the direct actions of the governments and by using trickery and manipulation to overcome resistance. I have described how it is not the democratic institution it purports to be, being analogous to the Soviet system of governance, with rule by a politburo. How the only democracy allowed is also analogous to the Soviet, being a Parliament that only exists to draft legislation to enact the political decisions of the Politburo and being incapable of its own decisions. And I have outlined how, just like the Soviet model, it is based on centralised governance and will brook no dissent from its constituent Republics.
I would just like to conclude my critical analysis of the European hegemony by considering why The European Union exists, why it was necessary as seen in some quarters and what it ultimately hopes to become. In the aftermath of World War Two, Europe was comprised of many nations, each of which was struggling to deal with the legacy of the economic impact of that conflict. Also too, many nations had defaulted back to a Left-Wing ideology, politics of the Right and Nationalism having, at that time, something of a taint. This led to a series of Left-Wing governments in European nations that were at best Socialist and stretching right across to Communism.
As time passed and economies stabilised it was seen among the governments of the nations of Europe that disparity between trade regulations and customs duty hindered the effective marketing of goods across national boundaries.
Thus was the Treaty of Rome established in 1957, creating the European Economic Community, sometimes colloquially called The Common Market. It established a free-trade area right across the signatory states that removed customs duties and established regulatory parity. The effect was to treat the aggregate area of the signatory states as though it was one large domestic market. This was very useful from the point of economic growth.
But there was one other issue that was playing on the minds of two of the largest nations in Europe. France and Germany had a run of almost continual progressive Socialist governments since the war, moving towards ever deeper Socialism.
But as the leaders of these nations looked out across Europe they noticed an unsettling issue. Other nations in Europe periodically chose to elect governments of the centre-Right, whose policies would then undo the progressive Socialism of the previous administration.
They wondered if there was some way that Socialism could be locked, if there was some way the tendency of centre-Right governments to roll back their progressive policies could be mitigated. Thus the idea of a political union was born, an overarching tier of supranational government that could support socialist governments in individual nations and override centre-Right governments when they tried to apply their policies.
The European Union would be exactly this supranational state. But how could it be brought into existence? Obviously, the people themselves could not be trusted to make a decision like that. At best it would have formed a Union only of those nations that consistently chose Socialism.
But if the governments of the nations themselves could be persuaded to sign up to the Union without reference to their people, if it could be offered on the basis that it benefitted the economy, it could be done without the need for consent of the people.
So, the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 establishing The European Union was signed. With a stroke of the pen, each nation surrendered its sovereignty, submitted itself to a political construct based upon the archetype of The Soviet Union.
Now it did not matter if an individual nation did not wish to pursue a social policy, it would have it imposed upon them by The European Union. It did not matter if an individual nation wanted to establish a political treaty with a non-EU nation, The European Union would not permit it.
And it did not matter if the judiciary of a nation wished to rule on a position which would do something against the liberalist agenda of the EU Socialists, the Supreme Court of The European Union would overrule it. How could there ever have been such an all-encompassing act of treachery by politicians against their own people in recorded history? To compel them to accept the government of a Soviet-style foreign entity and to hand their own powers of government to that entity without mandate of the people.
This was HOW this Socialist hegemony, with its Politburo governance by diktat came to be. This is WHY it came to be. So that democracy, the very essence of choice to determine their own ultimate form of government could be stolen from the people and replaced with a tyranny that could decide it knew best what its Proletariat needed, what policies should regulate it, what laws should govern it.
The European Union was created without the consent of the people. It governs without the mandate of the people. It controls without any possibility of opposition by representation of the people. And where is this Union going? It’s avowed purpose is ever closer political and economic union. In other words, an ever more perfect replica of The Soviet Union. It this what the people of Europe desire. To give up control of their destiny to a European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
I think not. But there it is. The great deception that is The European Union."