The EU doesn't protect workers' rights - it has destroyed them

[AntiBank]

6. ask the Greeks about fuckery

The EU is designed from its base to benefit the multinationals, the biggest nations within its ever growing borders at the expense of the small and less well off ones. It thrives off the easy flow of cheap, compliant labour, the iron fisted enforcement of austerity regimes, the constant pulling out of sovereignty from the individual nation states that allows the the never-ending path to complete financialisation of multiple sectors, It is absolutely riddled with cloaked protectionism, unbalancing subsidies, and superhighways of entry for the largest of the large, whilst the small, the regional is shackled with seemingly endless regulatory burdens, many that border on the comic and absurd. It is a project by, for and in the interest of the technocratic class, a public/private whip hand of predatory capitalism gussied up in false paradigms of "market efficiency" and false posturings of "peaceful projections".

Look at it's incursions on multivariate levels into Ukraine.

I use a part of an article here to show that far from preventing some imaginary, and profoundly unlikely (to degrees in the orders of magnitude) war between any of the current EU countries, the EU is helping START wars.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/22/the-left-and-the-eu-why-cling-to-this-reactionary-institution/

In the case of Ukraine, the action that set in motion the chain of events leading to civil war was the offer by the EU of an Association Agreement. This has frequently been depicted as a generous arrangement under which Ukraine would have benefited from most of the advantages enjoyed by EU member states, without, however, formally becoming a member. In actual fact the agreement would have required Ukraine to sever economic relations with Russia, a country to which it was intimately bound by a shared history, and was linked to a package of swingeing austerity measures that would have resulted in the ruination of Ukraine’s economy. Moreover, despite the outraged denials of its framers, the deal also mandated military cooperation between the EU and Ukraine and was clearly intended as a prelude to NATO membership.

Given the fact that approximately half of Ukrainians, mainly living in the East of the country, were opposed to NATO and favoured better relations with Russia, it was hardly likely that the Ukrainian President, Victor Yanukovych, who by all accounts had pro-EU leanings, would ever have been able to implement the terms of such a deal without splitting the country in two. When at the end of 2013 he therefore rejected the Agreement, prompting protests in Kiev’s Maidan Square, in which Ukraine’s fascist parties, which are driven by a racist hatred of the country’s ethnic Russian population, played a prominent part, both the EU and the US chose to back the protesters agitating for his removal. After Yanukovch was overthrown in a putsch in February 2014, spearheaded by those same fascist elements within the opposition, instead of spurning the interim government that was installed following his ouster the EU immediately proceeded to signal their approval by securing its assent to the Association Agreement that Yanukovych had originally refused to sign. When Eastern Ukrainians rose in revolt against the putschist government, which had removed the democratically elected President from office and concluded an Association Agreement in spite of their objections, the EU disingenuously attributed Ukraine’s descent into civil war to Russian interference.

The defenders of the EU refuse to acknowledge its contribution to the turmoil that has engulfed Ukraine, or its part in bringing about a new cold war, even arguing that Russia’s opposition to the European project stems from a distaste for democracy and human rights, rather than simple geopolitics.