Have you asked each and every person to come to your conclusion? I voted "leave" because I don't want unelected officials like Junker deciding the law of the land in a UK.
Perhaps you should get more informed and read up on the Kalergi Plan.
There is such a thing as surveys which can capture motivations and reasoning. And then there is the rhethoric of the leave campaign, some of which was obviously untrue back then (the famous NHS line on that bus), and some have turned out to be lies after the referendum (like the optimistic assumptions about a brexit deal). At the very least the voters did not have a clear picture of how the deal would work out.
Your point about "unelected officials" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the EU works. "The EU" or its officials don't decide that much, if anything at all. Most of it relates to being able to exchange goods and services in a fair and safe manner. And even then, these decisions are driven by the elected governments of the member countries, because the "unelected officials" are selected and directed by those.
For example: if a company from country A is providing a service in Country B, using workers from country A, then there need to be certain rules. Labor protections should apply equally, as should professional qualifications and such. Similar things apply to goods traded between countries. If one country lowers its standards, for example for medical equipment, and the other members are forced to accept that equipment, then there is both a safety concern and a competitive concern. That's why so much regulation is coordinated at the EU level - and driven by the member states.
And no, bilateral treaties can't keep up the slack, because 28 member countries would have to have bilateral treaties with each other, which would be impractical.
It looks like what this guy was saying was that people would be fucking a lot and ethnic groups would mix as time moves on. I mean, this is literally the story of homo sapiens. Mass migrations and ethnic mixing - been happening for hundreds of thousands of years.
as you are telling others to be more informed, and you said that Junker is unelected.. how do you think Junker ended up in there? Do you think he can just do whatever he wants without having to asked? Or you think every important official should be directly elected by the citizens? Spoiler: it does not happen in the main democracies for roles such as president or even head of state, and of course it does not happen for the Queen. I would be more upset bout that than about Junker.
Particularly these "unelected officials" are a necessary part of every burocracy.
Unless a voter spends a ridiculous amount of time studying and keeping current in politics, he can only meaningfully participate in a limited number of elections and issues. "Down the ballot", even for things like AGs or Judges, much less regulatory officials, people lose interest and competency.
I was personally surprised to see my face as a "contributor" to ClassicPress, with a link to the Github contributors page that indeed shows my 1,900+ commits... to WordPress.
I think it's confusing to screenshot the faces of all the WP developers, put it on your project homepage, and say "This project exists thanks to all the people who contribute." WordPress itself started as a fork so I fully support the importance of forking, but there's a way to acknowledge WP contributors without making it look like we're endorsing your project. Thank you!
Ironic you mention the astroturfing, as the person you replied to is the creator of ClassicPress ;)
The creator likes to namedrop ClassicPress everywhere on the WP.org forums and WPTavern. He's had his posts removed from the wp.org forums due to spam too.
Pretty simple to find out by logging the referring site that is requesting assets from your server. I used to do this all the time about a decade ago when it was common practice to steal entire site designs.
My favourite moment was when we changed a picture that someone was hot linking to as part of their own website and they emailed us with a rant saying "how dare you change the image"
They can argue back with me if they feel so strongly about it.
I am tired of playing nice and assuming everyone has good intentions when this sexist passive BS crops up. This is not a good argument. 'Who applies' is a perspective offered very clearly from only one side of the application pool - and it's severely limited because the only people that get listened to about the problem are the ones that retain authority over the business dynamic.
It is incomplete information. I don't know how to make this more clear or obvious, but if people who value reason and logic and hard facts so intimately want to shoot themselves in the foot, well, cest la vie
