@NotoEUyestoDemocracy you know england used to be divided into 7 kigdoms that hated each others guts at one point. somewhere between the fall of the roman empier and the medeival age.
@NotoEUyestoDemocracy thats still not a reason to not learn a common language. and if your going to bring blood ties into it we have blood ties with the rest of europe. partly through our monarchy, partly because of the romans and partly because of the indoeuropean culture.
@NotoEUyestoDemocracy there is nothing wrong with everyone speaking the same auxillary language. most nations have 2 or 3 diffrent languages taught in schools as a matter of corse anyway.
EU-ECB :New Jobs+Growth plan is a must, media manipulators w/ 3 Credit Rating Agencies & Gold ETF shorters are pushing nonsense stories to crash EU markets and get assets very cheap(EADS,energy...)and to distract from NewsCorp.-Murdoch crimes, solution:Solar-Wind-Wave Energy,hybrid-electric plug-in cars-trucks,geothermal- fuel-cells, filters-soaps for coal power plants,bio-fuels-camelina-seaweeds-jet-fuel, manufacturing+ installation: where is the new Plan +new Jobs? financialtools1.blogspot.com
I like Europe.... but it's too diverse in its politics and economic situations and I'd rather be governed by London than Brussels, not to mention the fact that the politicians in London are democratically elected by me
Dining European family, or death depends on the future of European citizens! in future, individual European nations will never again play an important role in the world. If we do not unite Europe was just fall and will not at all irrelevant. superpower China or India will absorb Europe. The choice is yours European! or your rich history and culture would collapse under the pressure of a future or Europe will be reborn and to dictate its terms to the world! The solution for you!
Europe as one super power! We need reform, we need to become stronger both economically and through strengh of arms. If we were to be unified in this way we would be the strongest country in the world. If we don't become more than we are then europe will be but a memory and it is those memories of past gory that are holding us back. What else is the point of being part of the E.U if we aren't going to unnite at some stage?
(...) from Maine or Michigan. There is a language issue? Well, a dozen european nations prove that's no issue at all! And to reach this level of civilizational unity, Europe did not need any common flag, anthem or even conscience of itself. If we have this things now, great! Europeans may choose to stand divided in nation-states (with tragic consequences, in my opinion), but cannot choose not to be europeans: that's the first thing they are, were, and always be, no matter what else.
We have great cultural diferences within Europe, it's true, but in spite of that, being "european" is a very objective identity. It's like a band playing drums and bagpipes, you can play a lot of different songs with it, but it is music with a certain identity. The kind of cultural disparity we have within Europe is not of higher level than that within the USA, or China, or Russia. Portugal or Spain have the same level of cultural discrepancy from germany or Denmark that California haves (...)
Saying things like "I consider myself european" or "we must become europeans" is like me saying "I consider myself an human being" or "we must become human beings" (well, unless it haves an "poetic" sense). All those who were born within the european continent and, hence, within the european civilization, are europeans, no matter if Europe is a political identity or not! I stand, above all things, for the political unity of Europe, but my "europeaness" don't depend on that.
I'm for a European federation or state. But I'm for a democratic one, where the member states can still look at their own country, culture and history with pride. I want to be able to proudly call myself BOTH a Swede, AND a European. And I want to be able to do so knowing I became a European through democratic means, not through deceit from corrupt globalists.
Today, that is a problem to me when I look at the way EU functions.
And I dont wont to hand over all military of all european nations to one single person! But as i know my vote doesnt count ... this looks like Germany in 1933 to me .... why is it Nigel Farage has a planecrash in the same year the 'eurosceptic' prime of poland has one! Why was i just waiting for Nigel Farage having an accident?
how about: the elected politicians get all political power directly from the people - that's what the german constitution says and i bet several other european constitutions aswell. So, assuming the political power the political leaders hold is in reality the power of the people handed over to them. My question: can they just pass on political powers to foreign institutions? Is this within their range of authority? Clearly not! ... that's why it is alright to call it a powergrab.
screwed-up propaganda selling us in dictatorship. Why should the removal of the poor leftovers of democracy be a good thing? They undo the french revolution! This is serious. This ad-campaign the EU has launched is such a pain in the ass!
well as an american i wouldnt mind another superpower that we can actually trust cuz im not so sure about china so i wouldnt mind to see it happen so it could help us out if china decides to start stuff with us
In my opinion - Europe should unite under one common banner. However, I wish that the United Kingdom and Ireland do not follow its EU friends into one power. The United Kingdom and Ireland share a common friendship and the United Kingdom has a more international stand in politics instead of European. What would happen to the commonwealth if its creating nation disappear in a federal European superstate?
n excellent video. I'm very pro-European and I look forward to a European super state. Hopefully! Especially in Britain we need to realise that the world is a very different place now. We don't have an Empire, our economy is going to be dwarfed by China, India, Brazil and Nigeria in the coming years. We need to decide whether this once great nation falls into obscurity or whether we unite and become the benevolent super power I know we can be.
An excellent video. I'm very pro-European and I look forward to a European super state. Hopefully! Especially in Britain we need to realise that the world is a very different place now. We don't have an Empire, our economy is going to be dwarfed by China, India, Brazil and Nigeria in the coming years. We need to decide whether this once great nation falls into obscurity or whether we unite and become the benevolent super power I know we can be.
Wether for or against a European Superstate,....it is for the peoples of Europe to decide and not the unelected "elites" on a commission of millionares.
Good point except that it's not the commissioners that decide these matters, in fact they have zero influence on the structure of The EU. The commissioners are basically glorified errand boys that act within areas they are told to act.
Can't say I'm familiar with their net worth but I doubt many of them are millionaires. Why is this relevant though? Should we rank people in different classes, is that what you're saying?
@jokakutihuti Do you think the Council dot their I's and cross their t's, no. Once the Ministers leave it in the hands of the commission they can't even oversee what is being done, they can't come back and examine what is being done in their name. The next they see it is when it's presented to parliament to rubber stamp.
And YES, commissioners with pay, perks and pensions can end up millionaires although once out of it they can forfeit their pensions should they ever critisise the EU. Nice.
@jokakutihuti Don't be fooled my friend we have little to say. We cannot choose if we go to Iraq or Afghanistan, we cannot even choose if our food is gentech free. So we cannot make dicisions about when we go to war and what we eat! You should do some research about what kind of influences some coorporations with governments have. Right now your bankaccount and retirementmoney is probably being invested in oil and weapons. There you have your facts and the basis our system is build upon. Peace
The EU will ultimately disintegrate, because no system in history built so fundamentally in opposition to the will of the people it governs has ever survived.
Bullshit. Various polls put public opposition to the EU or the depth of our membership from 50-75% typically. One Daily Express poll had it that 95% of its readers said we should get out entirely.
Quoting the Express as a useful statistic hardly gets one brownie points for credibility.
What is fairest to say about the UK vis a vis the EU is that it is divided on the issue. We've had polls in the last year that have made that division clear - including one last May commissioned by UKIP that revealed a 55-41 split on both the question "should we leave" and that of "should we stay in" (I paraphrase) - but then there's no accounting for poll respondents.
I was referring to TheDustpile's comment. But FWIW, as far as why you might be interested in British statistics, it helps to be at least marginally aware of the political situation in the UK, given that a lot of your detractors in your comments hail from that Member State.
@jokakutihuti ... who is saing that? ... all of the people i know who did a independent research on the topic at least have some concerns just because it is an undemocratic powergrab.
Well I would rather our influence in the world be considered 'second-class', than have zero influence at all when we're 'relegated' to a mere territory within in a supra-national Europe.
Then again, I guess we've always got Baroness 'Never been elected or had a real job' Ashton, to speak for us all.
Who are Europe's 'second class' nations? Iceland, Switzerland and Norway, all have voluntary agreements with the EU and all do better than the EU average in GDP Per Cap and in the HDI.
They also have less influence to gain from membership. Norway has a small population and LOTS of oil. Switzerland has a small population is a tax haven. Iceland is *tiny*, and I'm surprised any anti-federalist has the temerity to laud its economic health right now. They're all subject to EU regulations in which they have *no* say. If we're a province, then they're basically satellite states. That's not a sensible position for a country the size of the UK, with the influence we have in the EP.
@keithdeath1 Greece is the insolvent, bankrupt country that threatens to bring down the entire EU (European Union) with its exploding and toxic national debt. But its just one of the PIGS — Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. The EU is damned if they do, damned if they dont. If they choose to bail out Greece in order to save the union, soon theyll have much bigger bankrupt nations to deal with. There isnt enough money in all the world to bail out all of them. The EU is in big trouble.
@jmallton I don't know why your comment was marked as spam :-( I rather doubt that Greece's financial difficulties will bring down the EU. I don't even think it will bring down the Eurozone. I think there is (rightly or wrongly - that's a matter of opinion) too much political capital invested in it to allow it to fail, even if the Eurozone leaders have to rewrite the ECB rules or tell the ECB to ignore them to ease the pressure. Of course, that's just my opinion - I have no crystal ball.
@keithdeath1 If Greece is bailed out....You have Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Iceland standing in line waiting with their hands out. The EU is in no better shape than the rest of the world financially. There will have to be a massive internal change to the overall political model or just simply dissovle the EU.
1. The Eurozone isn't the EU. Exhibits A thru D: the UK, Denmark, Sweden, and all the A10 except Slovakia. The failure of the one doesn't entail the failure of the other.
2. Economic and/or even political reforms may be needed, but that's for later. Crisis management is the top priority. No structural change or new regulations can fix what's wrong with the weaker eurozone economies right now.
3. It's not a given that Greece will be bailed out, nor that one size fits all.
If independent, democratic, sovereign self-government constitutes a 'satellite' in your opinion, then that sounds pretty good to me! To dismiss their out-perfomance of the EU as coincidence or they're 'tax havens' is a circular argument, they have high living standards and prosperity BECAUSE they have self-government and can decide their own policy. They don't have to submit to the will of unelected commissioners who answer to no one and dictate policy for hundreds of millions of diverse people.
@pete6256 - I've not dismissed anything as "coincidence", thank you! Norway has lots of oil - fact. Switzerland is a tax haven - fact. Since we know that having lots of oil or being a tax haven helps to make one wealthier, and since you don't actually have a means of demonstrating that non-membership makes one wealthier, I offer you: Occam's Razor. Switzerland and Norway's wealth is readily accounted for by known phenomena. Your assertion is unsupported conjecture. (Continued pt2)
Norway & Switzerland can determine their own tax and regulatory policy- FACT. Your whole federal argument makes no economic sense because it serves to inhibit competition between territories and between countries and disincentivises innovation & efficiency. Government's know they can only increase tax and regulation up until a certain level before business moves abroad, but that competitive pressure is lost in the EU because individual countries have little say in the ever wider harmonisation.
"Norway & Switzerland can determine their own tax and regulatory policy- FACT." Not entirely. They are bound by regulations that apply to all EEA states and to Switzerland. As for the rest, I have no idea what "whole federal argument" you are attributing to me, as I don't recall actually making one. Nor am I sure on what basis you assert that the Single Market inhibits competition.
I never said a single market inhibits competition, I'm in favour of removing trade barriers provided it is based on voluntary inter-governmental co-operation. Taxes and regulation are rarely (if ever) harmonised downwards, my point was that blanket regulatory framework across differing economies, creates no incentive for investment to move from one region to another. It's this lack of incentive which is detrimental to competition and innovation.
A common regulatory framework is intrinsic to the Single Market. A free trade area doesn't deal with the problem of protectionist non-tariff measures (e.g. insisting on certain arcane standards) - with the result that trading "partners" can break the spirit of the agreement by putting up barriers against one another. The Single Market doesn't allow that. It insists on a level playing field, which makes it *easier* to invest in other Member States, not harder. Expansion is incentive enough.
If a sovereign government wishes to impose tariffs or restrictions, they have the right to do so - of course I don't agree with it because protectionism tends to be for political, not economic reasons. Harmonisation of ever more tax and regulation does constrain business because national govenments are restricted about how they can create a competitve advantage over their neighbours. The EU also imposes draconian restrictions to trade coming in, just look at the abomination that is the CAP.
"If a sovereign government wishes to impose tariffs or restrictions, they have the right to do so." Of course. But if doing so involves repudiation of trading agreements, it's not necessarily a good idea. Harmonization of tax *rules* does not entail harmonization of tax *rates* - so Dan Hannan is flat wrong when he asserts that this stifles tax competition. As for external trade barriers, I agree the CAP is a PITA but that's something that's existed since the Sixties, it's hardly new...?
But harmonisation does stifle competition if no territory can alter or reduce their rules in order to seek a competitive advantage over their neighbours.
Hardly new...? Slavery was hardly new when they abolished that, but it didn't make it any less justified when it was finally abolished.
"But harmonisation does stifle competition if no territory can alter or reduce their rules in order to seek a competitive advantage over their neighbours." And how has that worked out in the US? Competition in that federation is hardly "stifled", is it? And what about the costs to business of having to implement 27 different sets of rules, with 27 different accounting systems? It's hardly a one-way street. Those additional burdens on business *also* stifle growth.
Because different states within the US have tax raising powers and states and can implement their own rules and regulations - and many in America are quite right to stanchly oppose federal power erroding states rights and imposing blanket rules, - as we should oppose it in Europe. This competition between states helps to keep tax and regulation low, because it's detrimental to them if business moves away.
"Corporate tax in the United States is imposed both by the federal government and by most state governments. The federal income tax on corporations is the more significant tax, in terms of the tax rates, the number of entities affected and the complexity of its rules." (From 'Corporate tax in the United States', Wikipedia)
The CCCTB isn't even a federal corporation tax. Member States can still set their own rates and implement their own rules AFAICT.
The point about the CAP is not to justify it. But those who take the rose-tinted view that the Common Market was so much better than the EU *must* acknowledge that not only was the CAP with us back then, but *also* it (a) accounted for a greater proportion of the common budget, and (b) was a lot harder to reform than it is today. Going backwards, as some would have us do, is not the way to fix it. It would entrench it - which is the last thing reformers want.
My best friend is an agricultural economist for DEFRA and he says that every year they go to the conference on CAP and every year they argue the British position that it should be scrapped, and every year very little happens. Why should I suffer with higher food prices just to keep some farmer in a job? - Madness.
Because (a) "very little happens" is not the same as "nothing happens" (and if the French still had a veto on everything to do with the CAP, that's the position we'd be in); and (b) the CAP, for all its ills, ensures relatively *stable* food prices, even when world food markets go completely AWOL, and that - whatever happens in the rest of the world - Europe can feed itself come what may. That doesn't justify the level of subsidy, but scrapping it altogether could be considered irresponsible.
Irresponsible? Using my tax money to stock pile or destroy food in order to keep prices artifically high (but 'stable') is just downright wrong - not to mention all the completely unnecessary poverty it generates in the third world.
The problem with the EU is that we're just one voice in a crowd of many, let's withdraw and give our own legislators who're directly accountable to us the power to make these sorts of decisions.
The CAP is why we have an abatement. Relatively little of your tax money, or mine, is used to fund it. If the alternatives to stockpiling food are dumping it on the World markets or doing a chainsaw-massacre on our agricultural sector, you can see why your DEFRA friend has his work cut out.
Your second paragraph is one of those mantras in which you could easily replace "EU" with "UK", or indeed "England" if it had its own legislature. The problem with any society is that we're one among many.
I'm not suggesting we take a chainsaw to anything, I am simply pointing out it's an immoral, bureaucratic and inefficient system (much the like the EU itself) and farmers should survive on a commerical basis like everyone else.
2nd paragraph goes back to my point that power should to devolved to the lowest level. I have no right to tell the people of Devon they cannot have a legislature if it was their expressed wish - anymore than tell them they''re seeding power to the EU.
Well, actually, you *are* suggesting the chainsaw option if the only options are keeping the CAP as it is or scrapping it, and you want to scrap it. You're familiar with the term "dependency culture" - it's often used to describe some benefit claimants in the UK. That's the situation our agriculture is in with the CAP. You can't simply remove that support without massive economic (and social) dislocation. And subjective value judgements ("immoral") aren't helpful to the discussion.
Actually only 2% of our working population is employed in agriculture, but point taken, some people will lose their jobs. But from the point of view of the tax payer, consumer, thirld world farmer, environment etc it is the right thing to do.
The figure is rather higher in other Member States. (And again, our small agricultural sector is a reason for the abatement we get.) But your assertion that scrapping it is the right thing to do assumes that it cannot be reformed, for instance, to avoid undercutting Third World farmers or inflating prices at retail as is claimed (though I've never heard an adequate explanation of how the CAP can at the same time make food too expensive to buy, but too cheap for Third World producers to compete).
Says who? The whole sector won't be thrown out of work overnight. Many farmers might amalgamate their farms to make them more efficient, or find new things to grow and niches to exploit. Many will ultimately lose their jobs, but that's life.
It may be that not all of them would lose their jobs - but it may depend on how serious the situation is. What if it really is the case that farms cannot survive without at least some subsidy? Would you still be in favour of scrapping subsidies altogether?
It's one thing to say that power should be devolved to the lowest level that is practicable and effective. But advocating withdrawal is an assertion that a supranational level is *never* the most practicable or effective level. Why stop there? Why not advocate withdrawal from Westminster?
Governments form from within territories where people hold lingustic, cultural and historic bonds and their consent and loyalty tends to be to those insitutions.
But still, it's not for me or you to decide what is the most practicable level. If the power of Westminster has the consent of the people of the Isle of Wight, then it has a legitimate right to rule over that territory. The EU doesn't have the clear consent of the people to rule over this territory - therefore it is unjustified.
1) Sovereignty rests where it always has, with Parliament; it has the power and the right to delegate authority to whomever it pleases, by whatever means it pleases, in any form it pleases. That and that *alone* provides adequate justification for our membership of *every* supranational and intergovernmental organization that makes decisions that affect us - including the European Union.
2) Membership is the status quo. There's no clear consent for withdrawal either.
I think 1) above is important to emphasise, because it cuts both ways. If a future Parliament voted for withdrawal, and without a national plebiscite, we'd have to accept that. Even if we didn't like it, we cannot gainsay Parliament's sovereign right to repudiate any treaty it likes.
I'm prepared to accept that, and accept that if a future Parliament did so, its sovereignty is its own justification for that. The same, however, applies to our current membership. Can you accept that?
"Governments form from within territories where people hold lingustic, cultural and historic bonds and their consent and loyalty tends to be to those insitutions."
Perhaps, but emotional attachments based on cultural indoctrination don't necessarily make for particularly sensible administrative boundaries.
Further, have you not heard of the Norwegian term 'fax democracy', or the Swiss 'Guillotine Clause'? I would urge you to look them up; it might surprise you. It is not altogether accurate to state unequivocally that they decide their own policy (neither is it accurate to say that we do not; but that's another matter).
Regarding your remaining comments, it's a bit cumbersome to do justice to them in 500-character blocks, but I'll try in part 3.
@pete6256 part 3... do we "submit to the will of unelected commissioners who answer to no one and dictate policy for hundreds of diverse people"?
Not exactly. You see, national Governments appoint the Commission. National Governments set the Commission's agenda. The European Parliament can approve or reject the Commission. It can also censure it. And, aside from the stuff that was decided by the old EEC, the EP and/or Council can amend or strike down Commission proposals. Submit? I think not!
Exactly! I never got to vote for any commissioner or president, it's all decided through back-handed dealing between politician's.I vote for my MEP who can maybe block or amend legislation,but that's about it.
It's a worry trend for the post-democratic EU, that power seems to be centralising further and further away from the people it affects, and ever more into the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
We should be de-centralising power & juristicion and giving people a greater say, not less.
1. The power to amend or block legislation - even the threat of it - is a useful tool. The Lords have been steadily emasculated over the last century because they were too powerful.
2. I'll grant that the danger of over-centralization is a concern. But I'd also note that the trend in the EEC/EC/EU has been to steadily *increase* the powers of the EP; in 1979 they were directly elected for the first time, in 2009 they were given new powers under Lisbon.
The power to maybe amend or block legislation may be useful - but strikes me as a pretty feeble justification for living under laws proposed by people who aren't accountable to anyone but themselves.
It's not entirely accurate to say that the Commission is unaccountable to anyone but themselves. The European Parliament must endorse the appointees before they can take office as the Commission, and can also dismiss the Commission as a body (as nearly happened in 1999, though the Santer Commission chose to resign rather than suffer that indignity). Further, the Commission's actions are based on the remit and agenda the Council sets for them; they're not acting entirely independently.
But again, this is just more politicans possibly slightly accountable to more politicans, all the while they become ever further removed and more remote from the people they claim to be serving because they can propose legislation which impacts how we all live our lives and hold no electoral mandate.
To whom else should the Commission be accountable? They're operating according to a remit set by Member State Governments. They are accountable to those Governments and to the Parliament. If you want a directly elected Senate instead, I'm fine with that, but again, you're on the road to federation.
But above you extol intergovernmentalism - in which we have no directly elected representatives at all! The UN, WTO, IMF, G20, NATO... where are our directly elected representatives there?
3. In principle I agree with the notion that decision-making should be as close to the people that affect it as is practically possible. So, for that matter, do the Treaties that form the EU and to which every Member State has signed up. However, it's not always clear what that means in practice, and sometimes we must be prepared to challenge even our own Governments to ensure that they follow this principle.
It strikes me as unquestionably shameful that the people haven't been consulted on the radical constitutional changes which have happened in this country as a result of continued EU integration. The only plebiscite being 10 years before I was born. I guess with general elections being fought on a variety of issues, translating peoples euro-scepticism into policy is tough - which to be fair is a failing of our own system.
The UK generally doesn't do referendums. I was two when that referendum was held. We've never had a nationwide referendum before or since, on *any* issue.
I accept that the institutions have changed since, and not all who were comfortable with the EEC are comfortable with the EU. But then, in the early Eighties the EEC was less popular than the EU is now. I don't know how much euro-scepticism in the UK is deeply rooted, and how much is a side-effect of malaise against our Government. YMMV.
4. Sure you didn't vote directly for a commissioner or president - but you do vote for (or perhaps against) the people with the responsibility for doing so. You don't get to vote for the PM, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary etc. You only get to vote for (or against) a local MP, who may or may not have had a say in who their leader was, and that leader may or may not form a Government. You're not consulted over who will be Chancellor, Foreign Secretary etc - why make an exception for Commissioner?
Following on from 4 above... the problem is that the EU can hardly be expected to be better than its components. The UK is a representative democracy, which is to say, not all that democratic. The EU could be made arguably more democratic than the UK (say by directly electing a President) but that's the last thing anti-federalists want: it would give it more legitimacy, adding more momentum to federalization. So do you want an elected President? Are you a closet federalist?
The UK is certainly not a perfect system, I would argue that power should be further de-centralised from Westminister down to local councils, with real power to set tax rates, crime & punishment etc with decisions taken close to the people. The answer to the UK's over centralisation isn't more centralisation. I would prefer we just didn't have an EU President - or an EU for that matter! But the fact that he isn't elected seems pretty typical of the way the EU functions to me.
The problem with the notion of decentralising everything is that it's a nice idea in theory, but in practice it is tantamount to emasculation. There are too many issues that simply cannot be tackled or resolved at community, local or even national level - a city council cannot stand up to Microsoft, for instance, nor a single European country stand up to US steel tariffs. It's the reason why not only the EU but all those other NGOs (in which we have no direct say at all) exist.
I agree with you, the QANGO state is a concern and I never said everything needs to be de-centralised, there are issues which need to stay in the hands of national governments (perhaps defence). But look at the outrage in France when they realised Baroness Ashton didn't speak French,she's expected to be 'spokes-person' on their behalf, so how can they hold her to account when they cannot even understand what she's saying - let alone when she doesnn't hold any sort of elected mandate from anyone.
Interesting you say defence needs to stay in the hands of national Governments. If Iraq and Afghanistan have proved anything, it's that relying on our own resources for defence is next to pointless. Also, does that mean we should leave NATO?
Can't say I was aware of much outrage in France w.r.t. Baroness Ashton. But she can only act where Member State Governments agree. It's right that she's answerable to them. Or should we also directly elect the Secretary-General of NATO or the UN?
How is relying on our own resources for defence pointless? If what you say is true, then having constantly rely on others sounds just dangerous to me.
NATO was created as a voluntary alliance between nations to counter the threat of communism in Europe, if NATO started to pursue a foreign policy with an active 'position' in world affairs that was counter to our interests, then maybe we should leave.
Huh? How about defend our own citizens if attacked e.g the Falklands?
"others" also rely on us
Others do rely on us, but it's our perogative to decide when, how and who we help.
"Why does it still exist, then?"
It still exists because some countries like to be part of a military alliance, maybe if it is unnecessary to our needs in the 21st century then we should withdraw.
Merely being able to defend our own soil is the bare *minimum* we should expect of a defence force. It is not equivalent to being able to defend our interests.
And in a representative democracy it's our Government's prerogative to decide when, how and whom we help - and also what agreements we sign, by which we give undertakings to do so in the event of a crisis. That's why we're in the UN, NATO, and the WEU. That's why we've encouraged greater defence co-operation between Member States.
It is the governments perogative to decide, but they're accountable to their electorate. I have no problem with member states co-operating, as and when it is within their mutual interest and provided it is voluntary.
Ultimately, if only some member states decided that military action against a threat was necessary, then only those who agree will participate- making the whole security argument for the EU completely pointless.
In theory they're accountable to their electorates. In practice, it is a very imperfect system, but no-one here advocates withdrawal from Westminster. Why?
Re your second comment - when the US invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty after 9/11, all signatories were obliged to respond, whether they agreed with military action in Afghanistan or not. Besides, I'm not making a security argument for the EU. I merely questioned the notion that defence is an exclusive national competence.
No one advocates withdrawal from westminster? What about the Welsh or Scottish nationalists?
Some people have made the argument for a European Army and I'm simply arguing that it is unnecessary and pointless because defence of people and property within a territory is the responsibility of the regions government, and any co-operation should be voluntary.
It's funny how the Welsh and Scottish nationalists see their future as being within the EU though, isn't it? Their rationale is quite clear: they want out of a UK that is massively (~90%) dominated by a single entity - England. Such considerations do not come into play in the EU, because whilst Scotland and Wales would be small states in such an organization, there is no single state that dominates the show. (Not even the Franco-German Axis that gives the right-wing press sleepless nights.)
The way Greece is being treated right now and the way Ireland was treated over the lisbon treaty shows the dangers of being a small state in the European Union and Euro.
Scottish and Welsh nationalists are just crazy anyway. If it was not for the potential of EU membership their cause would be even weaker than it is today.
The point was, however, that I don't hear any *advocates of EU withdrawal* also advocating withdrawal from the UK. Double standards?
The argument for a European Army is greater coherence and economies of scale. It would enable for better defence of smaller states that simply *can't* muster an armed force to defend themselves, let alone contribute to anyone else's defence. Personally I think it's a long way off (if ever), as France and the UK won't want to lose their armies.
@jokakutihuti your country, i can safely say we british will break out of this European union it wont be forced upon us forever! where BRITISH BULLDOGS NOT BRUSSEL SPROUTS!!! the eu is open to fraud as proven many times it dosent meet the needs of all the peoples and it is seen as destroying a country getting rid of a national identity which cannot happen switzerland is more propersous than ever and its not in the EU ask yourself why? because there smart
@jokakutihuti the EU is wrong when the eu changes exchange rates it good for 1 country but bad for another so it just dont work everything about it is a joke and the fact becus of the EU policies rascists are being voted in the UK called the BNP just proves it is a hated organisation
Suppose we have a very different view of patriotism then. I see it as advancing and defending the interests of my fellow citizens, you see it as blind following of political institutions.
You're undercutting your compatriots future by trying to bully people you disagree with in to submission. I have a clear conscience, do you?
Oh yeah, and don't presume to know my motives when you don't.
You and your eurosceptic pals are calling me a "traitor" without knowing the slightest thing about me, simply because you disagree with me. I'm the one smearing? Get a grip!
@jokakutihuti Let me say one thing about the European Union as it is today: it's a bureaucratic, undemocratic moloch created for nothing else then the protection of financial interest groups. I am hugely disappointed in the entire project. But having said that.. we can reform and we should reform if we are to save the idea of a United Europe.
Think about a real constitution (U.S style "We The People"), less civil servants, more elected officials, no more European Commission.
@AmersfoortTristan The European Bank placed under the direct rule of Parliament (so no more semi-independent institutions that can be taken hostage by the banks), the weaker countries in the EU will have to leave the Eurozone for the time being.
Countries with a corruption problem will receive less or no funds (clean up your house first !) until they have their stuff in order. Consequence: countries like my own have to pay less. We'd have three capitals: Brussels (legislative ),
Luxembourg (juidicial) and Straßburg (legislative) and Parliament should remain in one city so no more institutions that are constantly moving around.
And maybe we should come up with some single unified systems as well: we could use a European passport (colour should be blue), a unified system for general healthcare, the same font and traffic signs, unified fairs for inter-European train travel and some more general help for travellers. But for the rest: keep the
@AmersfoortTristan EU small and efficient. With powers strictly separated and under firm democratic control. And have those powers that it has balanced out by State Rights.
Erm, I live in the UK and I know that most middle class people think that europe is good and it is the only thing which can bring us out of the incredible amounts of debt we have worked our way into! The EU will become a supestate in the next 20 years, most polititions consider that to be almost certain and the UK will be at the forefront of that.
You can only lead the world (and thrust me, everyone of us want's us to lead the world) when you're the best, that's why we need the EU. Europe = EU, a beacon light that outshines the brightest star in the universe.
Is there a vote from the european public to construct a constitution in their view?
Answeris NO !
The European elite will construct a constitution to better help their agenda along,once again leaving the public with no voice.....just like history has shown for centuries. hahahahah
American superiority confirmed, of course! Who has written the American Constitution? People? No. Political elites. Who has voted on it? People? No. Political elites... have there ever been a referendum on accepting other state within the US? Have there ever been a unique referendum to adopt the American Constitution? No. That's your superiority!
The United States constitution was created by our forefathers to put into motion the democratic system of electing officials to power,the 'EU commission' is an appointed body,not elected by the European public.
Also,the US constitution was written and followed by many referendums to include the rest of our states,what are you talking about?
One big difference is that these elite's in the EU are planning on casting away individual nationalities and restoring all identities to be same. You would no longer be 'German' or 'British' ,you will be 'European".having to be accountable to the Parliament in Brussels,and not in your former country. I have a feeling that most people will be against this,thats why the signers of the Lisbon treaty want to rush this through before people realize what they've done.
The EU is not restoring any common nationality. It is a different concept of multiple identities. You can be German AND European at the same time. Nobody who is trying to construct the common European identity is actually trying to destruct the smaller ones. Nobody from the EU is trying to get rid of the national parliaments. They are trying to make them cooperate. With all my respect, I really think that some people out of Europe have a very exaggerated view of what the EU actually is.
a funny thing is that the world (in a manner of speaking) always refers to Europe as a country and after a lot of decades, we are gaining some capabilities to act as such, without leting go(as many try to acuse) our own nationality. thats very nice and I am curious to see how things will progress.
"Iam sorry sir C is the wrong answer, the correct answer is A, sady Politoblog took the joy away from me to explain it in a funny manner. but yeah just read Politoblog's answer."
As a rational thinker for me to take this new world order blabber seriously I need answers to the following questions:
1. What evidence (and evidence today is widely misunderstood) is there for a new world order. Evidence by the way doesn't just constitute a motive.
2. What is the problem with a united Earth? People have stained the image of humanity being united as being bad. A while ago, especially in the midst of war a united world would be seen as a miracle and now people fear it, why?
What about the Parliament? The EU administration is no more unelected than any countries. Yes, they have a large civil service, but they also have an elected parliament. And I wasn't suggesting that Italy and Europe are or will be united in the same way, I was merely pointing out that the EU isn't annexing anything. It is uniting us. And isn't it better than Italy, if we are able to unite without bloodshed?
Yes but Italy not looking to annex other nations, like its doing EU and not looking to be a superpower independent from NATO.
For Serbia i dont wanna discuss. Its useless. If you want to sincere yourself, internet its full of news of that time. USA refuses multiple time to bombard Serbia. We ask them more and more time and finally said yes. USA had no one interest in Serbia. UE had it in making also his first conquer in Kosovo.
Untrue. We prayed more and more times USA to bombig Serbia as NATO...... They didnt wanted to do it, but did it at the end. USA always supported us, not same from us and this is also ungrateful..
EU lisbon Treaty its for the costitution of EUROCOP and European Army, read it.
EU Indepedent Army will be a treat to world peace and not only in my opinion.
Ah regarding environments and poorest country, we EU put all toxic and radioactive waste in Somalia and Africa and now into Black Sea too. Maybe you need to see better something. And this is the reason why we lost in Somalia.....
Best one as evironemental politic are France and UK too, but problem like Somalia stil remain.
We dont need Eu for that. We already did such things as NATO and by European nations agreements. We already united as NATO.
Honestly only things that came from EU are fines, bribes and threats of massive fines and so on.
Europe was build from European Independent Nations, not from European Union... EU need Lisbon Treaty, but its not Europe, its just an over national entity ( hope you understand ).
and will cost more and more with more tax raising and money going away from our country.
Marxist Eu policy with production quotes already desroyed our agricolure and so yours by forcing you to import stranger fishers and fish :)
The only way to came out of Economical crysis its Protectionism a moderate one, not total, but we MUST do a balance trade policy. Otherwise we ony getting worse and worse unitl war or Arabic, Russia and chinese colonization maybe..
wait, ireland was joined mainly to ECC not EU...... Europe Economic Cooperation its one thing. European Union its another. Ireland was in last decade the most tech industrial Eu nation with same strong fish industry. Eu opens to China markets progressively reduce that and strangers that fish in Ireland seas thats to Eu quotes and Eu guidelines, reduced Ireland Economy. Thats the fact. Algeria, Tunisia and Lybia growth about 7% last year, and that why are independent from WTO and EU.
from centuryes all nation always look at trade balance, and thats why we are different. Whis kind of World comunist WTO mixed up corporativism its a moster that is destroying us.
We are not like USA, we are much different, we need more time to became a federal state and anyway Lisbon Treaty will not do that, but do a Socialist Centralized Superstate and goodbye to your democratic costitution.
i hope that right wing will change EU, but same Hans Pottering became to blame Capitalism to embrace Socialism, without considering all liberal capitalist voted for them..... What do you need more ?? Beleve me i should want to makemistake, but i dont think so.
At the end Europe must import most of energy resources, no way. We can trade them today as NATO and with USA mediation. As superpower EU we will need Energy independence and this will trigger War.
i repeat how can you wonder to mix up our italian low wages with much more powerful UK industry and economy ??? Its a mess and its obvious the someone will pay, your workers, like already happen recently or our industry and unemployed people.
we already work togheter but not for everything. Something do togheter, others not. We are already allied and friendly nation. We are already have strong military defense system and strong cooperation in the NATO and we should reinforce NATO. Eu independece will only trigger WW3 like already happened.
2 world war happened 'cause was raising an European Superstate. Eu its already decresing Nato cooperation like recently Eu commission in Georgia.
@NotoEUyestoDemocracy i said she used to. read previous comment again.
CommanderMethos 4 months ago
@NotoEUyestoDemocracy england had a parliament in one form or another between 1066 right up until the act of union.
CommanderMethos 4 months ago
@NotoEUyestoDemocracy you know england used to be divided into 7 kigdoms that hated each others guts at one point. somewhere between the fall of the roman empier and the medeival age.
CommanderMethos 4 months ago
@NotoEUyestoDemocracy thats still not a reason to not learn a common language. and if your going to bring blood ties into it we have blood ties with the rest of europe. partly through our monarchy, partly because of the romans and partly because of the indoeuropean culture.
CommanderMethos 4 months ago
@NotoEUyestoDemocracy i got forced to spend 3 years learning german and french.
CommanderMethos 4 months ago
@NotoEUyestoDemocracy there is nothing wrong with everyone speaking the same auxillary language. most nations have 2 or 3 diffrent languages taught in schools as a matter of corse anyway.
CommanderMethos 4 months ago
but what language?? XD
sofusmadsen 5 months ago
@sofusmadsen esparonto
CommanderMethos 5 months ago
one europe
one language
one future
CommanderMethos 6 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
EU-ECB :New Jobs+Growth plan is a must, media manipulators w/ 3 Credit Rating Agencies & Gold ETF shorters are pushing nonsense stories to crash EU markets and get assets very cheap(EADS,energy...)and to distract from NewsCorp.-Murdoch crimes, solution:Solar-Wind-Wave Energy,hybrid-electric plug-in cars-trucks,geothermal- fuel-cells, filters-soaps for coal power plants,bio-fuels-camelina-seaweeds-jet-fuel, manufacturing+ installation: where is the new Plan +new Jobs? financialtools1.blogspot.com
financialtools1 6 months ago
I like Europe.... but it's too diverse in its politics and economic situations and I'd rather be governed by London than Brussels, not to mention the fact that the politicians in London are democratically elected by me
alsdaftable 7 months ago
The quote at the beginning is wrong, he never said human races, he said my race, and he meant the white European race at that.
ChainEffect1 8 months ago
death to eu before it destroy us all.
janak19771977 8 months ago
@janak19771977
Dining European family, or death depends on the future of European citizens! in future, individual European nations will never again play an important role in the world. If we do not unite Europe was just fall and will not at all irrelevant. superpower China or India will absorb Europe. The choice is yours European! or your rich history and culture would collapse under the pressure of a future or Europe will be reborn and to dictate its terms to the world! The solution for you!
AlderWolff 7 months ago 4
@AlderWolff
Very well said.
ViriathusVingathor 6 months ago
@AlderWolff i like it how you said it, and i totally agree. nationalism is not good. only keeps the gates of success closed...
FinMilkku 5 months ago
For an european politic union !
MasterLouisSG 9 months ago
Europe as one super power! We need reform, we need to become stronger both economically and through strengh of arms. If we were to be unified in this way we would be the strongest country in the world. If we don't become more than we are then europe will be but a memory and it is those memories of past gory that are holding us back. What else is the point of being part of the E.U if we aren't going to unnite at some stage?
MalteserGezar 1 year ago 10
If you know who owns the US, you'll understand who owns the EU. Sadly, there is nothing glorious about this... But just keep on cheering, idiots.
themagnussons 1 year ago
@themagnussons exatcly!!!
jjjonse 10 months ago
@MysticVilla agreed! between china's "communism" and america's ultra-liberalism... there is no option
MrODST25 1 year ago
I am proud to be european!
Kibernautas 1 year ago 5
(...) from Maine or Michigan. There is a language issue? Well, a dozen european nations prove that's no issue at all! And to reach this level of civilizational unity, Europe did not need any common flag, anthem or even conscience of itself. If we have this things now, great! Europeans may choose to stand divided in nation-states (with tragic consequences, in my opinion), but cannot choose not to be europeans: that's the first thing they are, were, and always be, no matter what else.
Aernuss1 1 year ago
We have great cultural diferences within Europe, it's true, but in spite of that, being "european" is a very objective identity. It's like a band playing drums and bagpipes, you can play a lot of different songs with it, but it is music with a certain identity. The kind of cultural disparity we have within Europe is not of higher level than that within the USA, or China, or Russia. Portugal or Spain have the same level of cultural discrepancy from germany or Denmark that California haves (...)
Aernuss1 1 year ago
Saying things like "I consider myself european" or "we must become europeans" is like me saying "I consider myself an human being" or "we must become human beings" (well, unless it haves an "poetic" sense). All those who were born within the european continent and, hence, within the european civilization, are europeans, no matter if Europe is a political identity or not! I stand, above all things, for the political unity of Europe, but my "europeaness" don't depend on that.
Aernuss1 1 year ago
I'm pround Polish citizen, living in Poland, But I also feel European. Let's go for United Europe!
crashout1992 1 year ago
I'm for a European federation or state. But I'm for a democratic one, where the member states can still look at their own country, culture and history with pride. I want to be able to proudly call myself BOTH a Swede, AND a European. And I want to be able to do so knowing I became a European through democratic means, not through deceit from corrupt globalists.
Today, that is a problem to me when I look at the way EU functions.
DerrickCole 1 year ago
@DerrickCole Like people from scotland still call themselves scottish and british :). Europe should be run this way
andyisapro 1 year ago
@andyisapro
Exactly, friend! I sincerely hope so too. It would be a beautiful, prosperous and mighty Europe to live in.
DerrickCole 1 year ago
And I dont wont to hand over all military of all european nations to one single person! But as i know my vote doesnt count ... this looks like Germany in 1933 to me .... why is it Nigel Farage has a planecrash in the same year the 'eurosceptic' prime of poland has one! Why was i just waiting for Nigel Farage having an accident?
raef235ahjx 1 year ago
how about: the elected politicians get all political power directly from the people - that's what the german constitution says and i bet several other european constitutions aswell. So, assuming the political power the political leaders hold is in reality the power of the people handed over to them. My question: can they just pass on political powers to foreign institutions? Is this within their range of authority? Clearly not! ... that's why it is alright to call it a powergrab.
raef235ahjx 1 year ago
screwed-up propaganda selling us in dictatorship. Why should the removal of the poor leftovers of democracy be a good thing? They undo the french revolution! This is serious. This ad-campaign the EU has launched is such a pain in the ass!
raef235ahjx 1 year ago
well as an american i wouldnt mind another superpower that we can actually trust cuz im not so sure about china so i wouldnt mind to see it happen so it could help us out if china decides to start stuff with us
AwsomeAndrew2 1 year ago
In my opinion - Europe should unite under one common banner. However, I wish that the United Kingdom and Ireland do not follow its EU friends into one power. The United Kingdom and Ireland share a common friendship and the United Kingdom has a more international stand in politics instead of European. What would happen to the commonwealth if its creating nation disappear in a federal European superstate?
TheNationalMilitary 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
n excellent video. I'm very pro-European and I look forward to a European super state. Hopefully! Especially in Britain we need to realise that the world is a very different place now. We don't have an Empire, our economy is going to be dwarfed by China, India, Brazil and Nigeria in the coming years. We need to decide whether this once great nation falls into obscurity or whether we unite and become the benevolent super power I know we can be.
willmer84 1 year ago
An excellent video. I'm very pro-European and I look forward to a European super state. Hopefully! Especially in Britain we need to realise that the world is a very different place now. We don't have an Empire, our economy is going to be dwarfed by China, India, Brazil and Nigeria in the coming years. We need to decide whether this once great nation falls into obscurity or whether we unite and become the benevolent super power I know we can be.
willmer84 1 year ago 2
the greatest video ever! job well done!!!
mtlilr 1 year ago
EU is sexy!!
jh5kl 1 year ago 22
Wether for or against a European Superstate,....it is for the peoples of Europe to decide and not the unelected "elites" on a commission of millionares.
Spenner56 2 years ago 10
Good point except that it's not the commissioners that decide these matters, in fact they have zero influence on the structure of The EU. The commissioners are basically glorified errand boys that act within areas they are told to act.
Can't say I'm familiar with their net worth but I doubt many of them are millionaires. Why is this relevant though? Should we rank people in different classes, is that what you're saying?
I suggest you do some more research on The EU.
jokakutihuti 2 years ago 16
@jokakutihuti Do you think the Council dot their I's and cross their t's, no. Once the Ministers leave it in the hands of the commission they can't even oversee what is being done, they can't come back and examine what is being done in their name. The next they see it is when it's presented to parliament to rubber stamp.
And YES, commissioners with pay, perks and pensions can end up millionaires although once out of it they can forfeit their pensions should they ever critisise the EU. Nice.
wjf0ne 1 year ago
@jokakutihuti Don't be fooled my friend we have little to say. We cannot choose if we go to Iraq or Afghanistan, we cannot even choose if our food is gentech free. So we cannot make dicisions about when we go to war and what we eat! You should do some research about what kind of influences some coorporations with governments have. Right now your bankaccount and retirementmoney is probably being invested in oil and weapons. There you have your facts and the basis our system is build upon. Peace
thefloris007 1 year ago
The EU will ultimately disintegrate, because no system in history built so fundamentally in opposition to the will of the people it governs has ever survived.
Screw the EU, long live democracy!
pete6256 2 years ago
Yeah but no. The EU enjoys public support by the majority of EU citizens.
jokakutihuti 2 years ago
Bullshit. Various polls put public opposition to the EU or the depth of our membership from 50-75% typically. One Daily Express poll had it that 95% of its readers said we should get out entirely.
TheDustpile 2 years ago
Quoting the Express as a useful statistic hardly gets one brownie points for credibility.
What is fairest to say about the UK vis a vis the EU is that it is divided on the issue. We've had polls in the last year that have made that division clear - including one last May commissioned by UKIP that revealed a 55-41 split on both the question "should we leave" and that of "should we stay in" (I paraphrase) - but then there's no accounting for poll respondents.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
Yeah but no. I wasn't talking about The UK, why you think I would be interested in British statistics is beyond me.
jokakutihuti 2 years ago
I was referring to TheDustpile's comment. But FWIW, as far as why you might be interested in British statistics, it helps to be at least marginally aware of the political situation in the UK, given that a lot of your detractors in your comments hail from that Member State.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
@jokakutihuti ... who is saing that? ... all of the people i know who did a independent research on the topic at least have some concerns just because it is an undemocratic powergrab.
raef235ahjx 1 year ago
Comment removed
keithdeath1 2 years ago
Well I would rather our influence in the world be considered 'second-class', than have zero influence at all when we're 'relegated' to a mere territory within in a supra-national Europe.
Then again, I guess we've always got Baroness 'Never been elected or had a real job' Ashton, to speak for us all.
Who are Europe's 'second class' nations? Iceland, Switzerland and Norway, all have voluntary agreements with the EU and all do better than the EU average in GDP Per Cap and in the HDI.
pete6256 2 years ago
Comment removed
keithdeath1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They also have less influence to gain from membership. Norway has a small population and LOTS of oil. Switzerland has a small population is a tax haven. Iceland is *tiny*, and I'm surprised any anti-federalist has the temerity to laud its economic health right now. They're all subject to EU regulations in which they have *no* say. If we're a province, then they're basically satellite states. That's not a sensible position for a country the size of the UK, with the influence we have in the EP.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@keithdeath1 Greece is the insolvent, bankrupt country that threatens to bring down the entire EU (European Union) with its exploding and toxic national debt. But its just one of the PIGS — Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. The EU is damned if they do, damned if they dont. If they choose to bail out Greece in order to save the union, soon theyll have much bigger bankrupt nations to deal with. There isnt enough money in all the world to bail out all of them. The EU is in big trouble.
jmallton 2 years ago
@jmallton I don't know why your comment was marked as spam :-( I rather doubt that Greece's financial difficulties will bring down the EU. I don't even think it will bring down the Eurozone. I think there is (rightly or wrongly - that's a matter of opinion) too much political capital invested in it to allow it to fail, even if the Eurozone leaders have to rewrite the ECB rules or tell the ECB to ignore them to ease the pressure. Of course, that's just my opinion - I have no crystal ball.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
@keithdeath1 If Greece is bailed out....You have Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Iceland standing in line waiting with their hands out. The EU is in no better shape than the rest of the world financially. There will have to be a massive internal change to the overall political model or just simply dissovle the EU.
jmallton 2 years ago
@jmallton
1. The Eurozone isn't the EU. Exhibits A thru D: the UK, Denmark, Sweden, and all the A10 except Slovakia. The failure of the one doesn't entail the failure of the other.
2. Economic and/or even political reforms may be needed, but that's for later. Crisis management is the top priority. No structural change or new regulations can fix what's wrong with the weaker eurozone economies right now.
3. It's not a given that Greece will be bailed out, nor that one size fits all.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
If independent, democratic, sovereign self-government constitutes a 'satellite' in your opinion, then that sounds pretty good to me! To dismiss their out-perfomance of the EU as coincidence or they're 'tax havens' is a circular argument, they have high living standards and prosperity BECAUSE they have self-government and can decide their own policy. They don't have to submit to the will of unelected commissioners who answer to no one and dictate policy for hundreds of millions of diverse people.
pete6256 2 years ago
@pete6256 - I've not dismissed anything as "coincidence", thank you! Norway has lots of oil - fact. Switzerland is a tax haven - fact. Since we know that having lots of oil or being a tax haven helps to make one wealthier, and since you don't actually have a means of demonstrating that non-membership makes one wealthier, I offer you: Occam's Razor. Switzerland and Norway's wealth is readily accounted for by known phenomena. Your assertion is unsupported conjecture. (Continued pt2)
keithdeath1 2 years ago
Norway & Switzerland can determine their own tax and regulatory policy- FACT. Your whole federal argument makes no economic sense because it serves to inhibit competition between territories and between countries and disincentivises innovation & efficiency. Government's know they can only increase tax and regulation up until a certain level before business moves abroad, but that competitive pressure is lost in the EU because individual countries have little say in the ever wider harmonisation.
pete6256 2 years ago
"Norway & Switzerland can determine their own tax and regulatory policy- FACT." Not entirely. They are bound by regulations that apply to all EEA states and to Switzerland. As for the rest, I have no idea what "whole federal argument" you are attributing to me, as I don't recall actually making one. Nor am I sure on what basis you assert that the Single Market inhibits competition.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
I never said a single market inhibits competition, I'm in favour of removing trade barriers provided it is based on voluntary inter-governmental co-operation. Taxes and regulation are rarely (if ever) harmonised downwards, my point was that blanket regulatory framework across differing economies, creates no incentive for investment to move from one region to another. It's this lack of incentive which is detrimental to competition and innovation.
pete6256 2 years ago
A common regulatory framework is intrinsic to the Single Market. A free trade area doesn't deal with the problem of protectionist non-tariff measures (e.g. insisting on certain arcane standards) - with the result that trading "partners" can break the spirit of the agreement by putting up barriers against one another. The Single Market doesn't allow that. It insists on a level playing field, which makes it *easier* to invest in other Member States, not harder. Expansion is incentive enough.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
If a sovereign government wishes to impose tariffs or restrictions, they have the right to do so - of course I don't agree with it because protectionism tends to be for political, not economic reasons. Harmonisation of ever more tax and regulation does constrain business because national govenments are restricted about how they can create a competitve advantage over their neighbours. The EU also imposes draconian restrictions to trade coming in, just look at the abomination that is the CAP.
pete6256 2 years ago
"If a sovereign government wishes to impose tariffs or restrictions, they have the right to do so." Of course. But if doing so involves repudiation of trading agreements, it's not necessarily a good idea. Harmonization of tax *rules* does not entail harmonization of tax *rates* - so Dan Hannan is flat wrong when he asserts that this stifles tax competition. As for external trade barriers, I agree the CAP is a PITA but that's something that's existed since the Sixties, it's hardly new...?
keithdeath1 2 years ago
But harmonisation does stifle competition if no territory can alter or reduce their rules in order to seek a competitive advantage over their neighbours.
Hardly new...? Slavery was hardly new when they abolished that, but it didn't make it any less justified when it was finally abolished.
pete6256 2 years ago
"But harmonisation does stifle competition if no territory can alter or reduce their rules in order to seek a competitive advantage over their neighbours." And how has that worked out in the US? Competition in that federation is hardly "stifled", is it? And what about the costs to business of having to implement 27 different sets of rules, with 27 different accounting systems? It's hardly a one-way street. Those additional burdens on business *also* stifle growth.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
Because different states within the US have tax raising powers and states and can implement their own rules and regulations - and many in America are quite right to stanchly oppose federal power erroding states rights and imposing blanket rules, - as we should oppose it in Europe. This competition between states helps to keep tax and regulation low, because it's detrimental to them if business moves away.
pete6256 2 years ago
"Corporate tax in the United States is imposed both by the federal government and by most state governments. The federal income tax on corporations is the more significant tax, in terms of the tax rates, the number of entities affected and the complexity of its rules." (From 'Corporate tax in the United States', Wikipedia)
The CCCTB isn't even a federal corporation tax. Member States can still set their own rates and implement their own rules AFAICT.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
The point about the CAP is not to justify it. But those who take the rose-tinted view that the Common Market was so much better than the EU *must* acknowledge that not only was the CAP with us back then, but *also* it (a) accounted for a greater proportion of the common budget, and (b) was a lot harder to reform than it is today. Going backwards, as some would have us do, is not the way to fix it. It would entrench it - which is the last thing reformers want.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
My best friend is an agricultural economist for DEFRA and he says that every year they go to the conference on CAP and every year they argue the British position that it should be scrapped, and every year very little happens. Why should I suffer with higher food prices just to keep some farmer in a job? - Madness.
pete6256 2 years ago
Because (a) "very little happens" is not the same as "nothing happens" (and if the French still had a veto on everything to do with the CAP, that's the position we'd be in); and (b) the CAP, for all its ills, ensures relatively *stable* food prices, even when world food markets go completely AWOL, and that - whatever happens in the rest of the world - Europe can feed itself come what may. That doesn't justify the level of subsidy, but scrapping it altogether could be considered irresponsible.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
Irresponsible? Using my tax money to stock pile or destroy food in order to keep prices artifically high (but 'stable') is just downright wrong - not to mention all the completely unnecessary poverty it generates in the third world.
The problem with the EU is that we're just one voice in a crowd of many, let's withdraw and give our own legislators who're directly accountable to us the power to make these sorts of decisions.
pete6256 2 years ago
The CAP is why we have an abatement. Relatively little of your tax money, or mine, is used to fund it. If the alternatives to stockpiling food are dumping it on the World markets or doing a chainsaw-massacre on our agricultural sector, you can see why your DEFRA friend has his work cut out.
Your second paragraph is one of those mantras in which you could easily replace "EU" with "UK", or indeed "England" if it had its own legislature. The problem with any society is that we're one among many.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
I'm not suggesting we take a chainsaw to anything, I am simply pointing out it's an immoral, bureaucratic and inefficient system (much the like the EU itself) and farmers should survive on a commerical basis like everyone else.
2nd paragraph goes back to my point that power should to devolved to the lowest level. I have no right to tell the people of Devon they cannot have a legislature if it was their expressed wish - anymore than tell them they''re seeding power to the EU.
pete6256 2 years ago
Well, actually, you *are* suggesting the chainsaw option if the only options are keeping the CAP as it is or scrapping it, and you want to scrap it. You're familiar with the term "dependency culture" - it's often used to describe some benefit claimants in the UK. That's the situation our agriculture is in with the CAP. You can't simply remove that support without massive economic (and social) dislocation. And subjective value judgements ("immoral") aren't helpful to the discussion.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
Actually only 2% of our working population is employed in agriculture, but point taken, some people will lose their jobs. But from the point of view of the tax payer, consumer, thirld world farmer, environment etc it is the right thing to do.
pete6256 2 years ago
The figure is rather higher in other Member States. (And again, our small agricultural sector is a reason for the abatement we get.) But your assertion that scrapping it is the right thing to do assumes that it cannot be reformed, for instance, to avoid undercutting Third World farmers or inflating prices at retail as is claimed (though I've never heard an adequate explanation of how the CAP can at the same time make food too expensive to buy, but too cheap for Third World producers to compete).
keithdeath1 2 years ago
Oh, and 2% of the workforce is still something like half a million jobs. If unemployment suddenly jumped by 2% overnight, I'm sure we'd notice!
keithdeath1 2 years ago
Says who? The whole sector won't be thrown out of work overnight. Many farmers might amalgamate their farms to make them more efficient, or find new things to grow and niches to exploit. Many will ultimately lose their jobs, but that's life.
pete6256 2 years ago
"If unemployment suddenly jumped by 2% overnight, I'm sure we'd notice!"
"Says who?"
LOL. There's no answer to that.
It may be that not all of them would lose their jobs - but it may depend on how serious the situation is. What if it really is the case that farms cannot survive without at least some subsidy? Would you still be in favour of scrapping subsidies altogether?
keithdeath1 2 years ago
It's one thing to say that power should be devolved to the lowest level that is practicable and effective. But advocating withdrawal is an assertion that a supranational level is *never* the most practicable or effective level. Why stop there? Why not advocate withdrawal from Westminster?
keithdeath1 2 years ago
Governments form from within territories where people hold lingustic, cultural and historic bonds and their consent and loyalty tends to be to those insitutions.
But still, it's not for me or you to decide what is the most practicable level. If the power of Westminster has the consent of the people of the Isle of Wight, then it has a legitimate right to rule over that territory. The EU doesn't have the clear consent of the people to rule over this territory - therefore it is unjustified.
pete6256 2 years ago
And we've come full circle.
1) Sovereignty rests where it always has, with Parliament; it has the power and the right to delegate authority to whomever it pleases, by whatever means it pleases, in any form it pleases. That and that *alone* provides adequate justification for our membership of *every* supranational and intergovernmental organization that makes decisions that affect us - including the European Union.
2) Membership is the status quo. There's no clear consent for withdrawal either.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
I think 1) above is important to emphasise, because it cuts both ways. If a future Parliament voted for withdrawal, and without a national plebiscite, we'd have to accept that. Even if we didn't like it, we cannot gainsay Parliament's sovereign right to repudiate any treaty it likes.
I'm prepared to accept that, and accept that if a future Parliament did so, its sovereignty is its own justification for that. The same, however, applies to our current membership. Can you accept that?
keithdeath1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Governments form from within territories where people hold lingustic, cultural and historic bonds and their consent and loyalty tends to be to those insitutions."
Perhaps, but emotional attachments based on cultural indoctrination don't necessarily make for particularly sensible administrative boundaries.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
@pete6256 (continued from part 1)
Further, have you not heard of the Norwegian term 'fax democracy', or the Swiss 'Guillotine Clause'? I would urge you to look them up; it might surprise you. It is not altogether accurate to state unequivocally that they decide their own policy (neither is it accurate to say that we do not; but that's another matter).
Regarding your remaining comments, it's a bit cumbersome to do justice to them in 500-character blocks, but I'll try in part 3.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
@pete6256 part 3... do we "submit to the will of unelected commissioners who answer to no one and dictate policy for hundreds of diverse people"?
Not exactly. You see, national Governments appoint the Commission. National Governments set the Commission's agenda. The European Parliament can approve or reject the Commission. It can also censure it. And, aside from the stuff that was decided by the old EEC, the EP and/or Council can amend or strike down Commission proposals. Submit? I think not!
keithdeath1 2 years ago
Exactly! I never got to vote for any commissioner or president, it's all decided through back-handed dealing between politician's.I vote for my MEP who can maybe block or amend legislation,but that's about it.
It's a worry trend for the post-democratic EU, that power seems to be centralising further and further away from the people it affects, and ever more into the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
We should be de-centralising power & juristicion and giving people a greater say, not less.
pete6256 2 years ago
1. The power to amend or block legislation - even the threat of it - is a useful tool. The Lords have been steadily emasculated over the last century because they were too powerful.
2. I'll grant that the danger of over-centralization is a concern. But I'd also note that the trend in the EEC/EC/EU has been to steadily *increase* the powers of the EP; in 1979 they were directly elected for the first time, in 2009 they were given new powers under Lisbon.
3. (see next comment)
keithdeath1 2 years ago
The power to maybe amend or block legislation may be useful - but strikes me as a pretty feeble justification for living under laws proposed by people who aren't accountable to anyone but themselves.
pete6256 2 years ago
It's not entirely accurate to say that the Commission is unaccountable to anyone but themselves. The European Parliament must endorse the appointees before they can take office as the Commission, and can also dismiss the Commission as a body (as nearly happened in 1999, though the Santer Commission chose to resign rather than suffer that indignity). Further, the Commission's actions are based on the remit and agenda the Council sets for them; they're not acting entirely independently.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
But again, this is just more politicans possibly slightly accountable to more politicans, all the while they become ever further removed and more remote from the people they claim to be serving because they can propose legislation which impacts how we all live our lives and hold no electoral mandate.
pete6256 2 years ago
To whom else should the Commission be accountable? They're operating according to a remit set by Member State Governments. They are accountable to those Governments and to the Parliament. If you want a directly elected Senate instead, I'm fine with that, but again, you're on the road to federation.
But above you extol intergovernmentalism - in which we have no directly elected representatives at all! The UN, WTO, IMF, G20, NATO... where are our directly elected representatives there?
keithdeath1 2 years ago
3. In principle I agree with the notion that decision-making should be as close to the people that affect it as is practically possible. So, for that matter, do the Treaties that form the EU and to which every Member State has signed up. However, it's not always clear what that means in practice, and sometimes we must be prepared to challenge even our own Governments to ensure that they follow this principle.
4. (stupid comment limit...)
keithdeath1 2 years ago
It strikes me as unquestionably shameful that the people haven't been consulted on the radical constitutional changes which have happened in this country as a result of continued EU integration. The only plebiscite being 10 years before I was born. I guess with general elections being fought on a variety of issues, translating peoples euro-scepticism into policy is tough - which to be fair is a failing of our own system.
pete6256 2 years ago
The UK generally doesn't do referendums. I was two when that referendum was held. We've never had a nationwide referendum before or since, on *any* issue.
I accept that the institutions have changed since, and not all who were comfortable with the EEC are comfortable with the EU. But then, in the early Eighties the EEC was less popular than the EU is now. I don't know how much euro-scepticism in the UK is deeply rooted, and how much is a side-effect of malaise against our Government. YMMV.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
4. Sure you didn't vote directly for a commissioner or president - but you do vote for (or perhaps against) the people with the responsibility for doing so. You don't get to vote for the PM, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary etc. You only get to vote for (or against) a local MP, who may or may not have had a say in who their leader was, and that leader may or may not form a Government. You're not consulted over who will be Chancellor, Foreign Secretary etc - why make an exception for Commissioner?
keithdeath1 2 years ago
Following on from 4 above... the problem is that the EU can hardly be expected to be better than its components. The UK is a representative democracy, which is to say, not all that democratic. The EU could be made arguably more democratic than the UK (say by directly electing a President) but that's the last thing anti-federalists want: it would give it more legitimacy, adding more momentum to federalization. So do you want an elected President? Are you a closet federalist?
keithdeath1 2 years ago
The UK is certainly not a perfect system, I would argue that power should be further de-centralised from Westminister down to local councils, with real power to set tax rates, crime & punishment etc with decisions taken close to the people. The answer to the UK's over centralisation isn't more centralisation. I would prefer we just didn't have an EU President - or an EU for that matter! But the fact that he isn't elected seems pretty typical of the way the EU functions to me.
pete6256 2 years ago
The problem with the notion of decentralising everything is that it's a nice idea in theory, but in practice it is tantamount to emasculation. There are too many issues that simply cannot be tackled or resolved at community, local or even national level - a city council cannot stand up to Microsoft, for instance, nor a single European country stand up to US steel tariffs. It's the reason why not only the EU but all those other NGOs (in which we have no direct say at all) exist.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
I agree with you, the QANGO state is a concern and I never said everything needs to be de-centralised, there are issues which need to stay in the hands of national governments (perhaps defence). But look at the outrage in France when they realised Baroness Ashton didn't speak French,she's expected to be 'spokes-person' on their behalf, so how can they hold her to account when they cannot even understand what she's saying - let alone when she doesnn't hold any sort of elected mandate from anyone.
pete6256 2 years ago
Interesting you say defence needs to stay in the hands of national Governments. If Iraq and Afghanistan have proved anything, it's that relying on our own resources for defence is next to pointless. Also, does that mean we should leave NATO?
Can't say I was aware of much outrage in France w.r.t. Baroness Ashton. But she can only act where Member State Governments agree. It's right that she's answerable to them. Or should we also directly elect the Secretary-General of NATO or the UN?
keithdeath1 2 years ago
How is relying on our own resources for defence pointless? If what you say is true, then having constantly rely on others sounds just dangerous to me.
NATO was created as a voluntary alliance between nations to counter the threat of communism in Europe, if NATO started to pursue a foreign policy with an active 'position' in world affairs that was counter to our interests, then maybe we should leave.
pete6256 2 years ago
"How is relying on our own resources for defence pointless?"
What can we actually, realistically, *do* with our own defence force, on our own?
"having constantly rely on others sounds just dangerous to me."
Perhaps, but bear in mind that those "others" also rely on us: what goes around comes around, and we all share the risks *and* the benefits.
"NATO was created as a voluntary alliance between nations to counter the threat of communism in Europe"
Why does it still exist, then?
keithdeath1 2 years ago
"What can we do with our of defence"
Huh? How about defend our own citizens if attacked e.g the Falklands?
"others" also rely on us
Others do rely on us, but it's our perogative to decide when, how and who we help.
"Why does it still exist, then?"
It still exists because some countries like to be part of a military alliance, maybe if it is unnecessary to our needs in the 21st century then we should withdraw.
pete6256 2 years ago
Merely being able to defend our own soil is the bare *minimum* we should expect of a defence force. It is not equivalent to being able to defend our interests.
And in a representative democracy it's our Government's prerogative to decide when, how and whom we help - and also what agreements we sign, by which we give undertakings to do so in the event of a crisis. That's why we're in the UN, NATO, and the WEU. That's why we've encouraged greater defence co-operation between Member States.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
It is the governments perogative to decide, but they're accountable to their electorate. I have no problem with member states co-operating, as and when it is within their mutual interest and provided it is voluntary.
Ultimately, if only some member states decided that military action against a threat was necessary, then only those who agree will participate- making the whole security argument for the EU completely pointless.
pete6256 2 years ago
In theory they're accountable to their electorates. In practice, it is a very imperfect system, but no-one here advocates withdrawal from Westminster. Why?
Re your second comment - when the US invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty after 9/11, all signatories were obliged to respond, whether they agreed with military action in Afghanistan or not. Besides, I'm not making a security argument for the EU. I merely questioned the notion that defence is an exclusive national competence.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
No one advocates withdrawal from westminster? What about the Welsh or Scottish nationalists?
Some people have made the argument for a European Army and I'm simply arguing that it is unnecessary and pointless because defence of people and property within a territory is the responsibility of the regions government, and any co-operation should be voluntary.
pete6256 2 years ago
It's funny how the Welsh and Scottish nationalists see their future as being within the EU though, isn't it? Their rationale is quite clear: they want out of a UK that is massively (~90%) dominated by a single entity - England. Such considerations do not come into play in the EU, because whilst Scotland and Wales would be small states in such an organization, there is no single state that dominates the show. (Not even the Franco-German Axis that gives the right-wing press sleepless nights.)
keithdeath1 2 years ago
The way Greece is being treated right now and the way Ireland was treated over the lisbon treaty shows the dangers of being a small state in the European Union and Euro.
Scottish and Welsh nationalists are just crazy anyway. If it was not for the potential of EU membership their cause would be even weaker than it is today.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
@TheBritishWatcher -10 for you
jh5kl 1 year ago
The point was, however, that I don't hear any *advocates of EU withdrawal* also advocating withdrawal from the UK. Double standards?
The argument for a European Army is greater coherence and economies of scale. It would enable for better defence of smaller states that simply *can't* muster an armed force to defend themselves, let alone contribute to anyone else's defence. Personally I think it's a long way off (if ever), as France and the UK won't want to lose their armies.
keithdeath1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As we enter a period of prolonged recession, our new Euro masters see a way to end their money worries at least: Take all of ours!
Paste this title into the bar: EU POWER-EATERS ALSO TO DEVOUR YOUR CASH!
TheDustpile 2 years ago
Traitor
Ermintrude75 2 years ago
Uh, who have I betrayed?
jokakutihuti 2 years ago
@jokakutihuti your country, i can safely say we british will break out of this European union it wont be forced upon us forever! where BRITISH BULLDOGS NOT BRUSSEL SPROUTS!!! the eu is open to fraud as proven many times it dosent meet the needs of all the peoples and it is seen as destroying a country getting rid of a national identity which cannot happen switzerland is more propersous than ever and its not in the EU ask yourself why? because there smart
JamesCunnyy 2 years ago
@jokakutihuti the EU is wrong when the eu changes exchange rates it good for 1 country but bad for another so it just dont work everything about it is a joke and the fact becus of the EU policies rascists are being voted in the UK called the BNP just proves it is a hated organisation
JamesCunnyy 2 years ago
@Ermintrude75
Hear hear! The EU destroys nations in order to exist. Anyone backing it is a traitor to their country, whether they realise or not.
TheDustpile 2 years ago
Suppose we have a very different view of patriotism then. I see it as advancing and defending the interests of my fellow citizens, you see it as blind following of political institutions.
You're undercutting your compatriots future by trying to bully people you disagree with in to submission. I have a clear conscience, do you?
Oh yeah, and don't presume to know my motives when you don't.
jokakutihuti 2 years ago
You're more than capable of arguing your corner. Your smears are useless.
TheDustpile 2 years ago
My Smears??
You and your eurosceptic pals are calling me a "traitor" without knowing the slightest thing about me, simply because you disagree with me. I'm the one smearing? Get a grip!
jokakutihuti 2 years ago
@jokakutihuti Let me say one thing about the European Union as it is today: it's a bureaucratic, undemocratic moloch created for nothing else then the protection of financial interest groups. I am hugely disappointed in the entire project. But having said that.. we can reform and we should reform if we are to save the idea of a United Europe.
Think about a real constitution (U.S style "We The People"), less civil servants, more elected officials, no more European Commission.
AmersfoortTristan 1 year ago
@AmersfoortTristan The European Bank placed under the direct rule of Parliament (so no more semi-independent institutions that can be taken hostage by the banks), the weaker countries in the EU will have to leave the Eurozone for the time being.
Countries with a corruption problem will receive less or no funds (clean up your house first !) until they have their stuff in order. Consequence: countries like my own have to pay less. We'd have three capitals: Brussels (legislative ),
AmersfoortTristan 1 year ago
@AmersfoortTristan
Luxembourg (juidicial) and Straßburg (legislative) and Parliament should remain in one city so no more institutions that are constantly moving around.
And maybe we should come up with some single unified systems as well: we could use a European passport (colour should be blue), a unified system for general healthcare, the same font and traffic signs, unified fairs for inter-European train travel and some more general help for travellers. But for the rest: keep the
AmersfoortTristan 1 year ago
@AmersfoortTristan EU small and efficient. With powers strictly separated and under firm democratic control. And have those powers that it has balanced out by State Rights.
AmersfoortTristan 1 year ago 3
yes, if europeans want to decide in the world, the E.U. is the answer, otherwise they wil be some kind of annex to U.S.A., Russia or China.
cornel10 2 years ago
go europe!
i've created a group to discuss about it
come and chat!
jetaddicted 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you speak the truth :D
WCPMC 2 years ago
Erm, I live in the UK and I know that most middle class people think that europe is good and it is the only thing which can bring us out of the incredible amounts of debt we have worked our way into! The EU will become a supestate in the next 20 years, most polititions consider that to be almost certain and the UK will be at the forefront of that.
XtremeGoose 2 years ago
You can only lead the world (and thrust me, everyone of us want's us to lead the world) when you're the best, that's why we need the EU. Europe = EU, a beacon light that outshines the brightest star in the universe.
indivum 2 years ago
"Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the? EU is now a reincarnation of the Soviet Union"
Pravda
WeAreTheBritish 2 years ago
Omg you are European, thoguht you were a russian cunt.
Why on earth dont you wanna be a part of the EU?
Sure it has it flaws but in the end it will strenghten us all, and we want Great Brittain on our side when that happends!
SpisadKoTunga 2 years ago
mnuk :-)))))....
PekarRichard 2 years ago
I agree with this in the main, however theres one point you make that i cannot agree with.
The Russia question. I am firmly of the camp that Russia should form part of a united Europe superstate.
stanleymaiden 2 years ago
Russia in EU?
I would rather shoot myself than see that happening.
No wait, i would suicide bomb Moscow.
No one is Scandinavia will accept some fucking russkies in EU, over our dead fucking bodies.
And i think i can speak for atleast Sweden and Finland on this cause.
SpisadKoTunga 2 years ago 2
EU is a pipe dream.....
Is there a vote from the european public to construct a constitution in their view?
Answeris NO !
The European elite will construct a constitution to better help their agenda along,once again leaving the public with no voice.....just like history has shown for centuries. hahahahah
American Superiority Confirmed !
75starsuck 2 years ago
American superiority confirmed, of course! Who has written the American Constitution? People? No. Political elites. Who has voted on it? People? No. Political elites... have there ever been a referendum on accepting other state within the US? Have there ever been a unique referendum to adopt the American Constitution? No. That's your superiority!
Politoblog 2 years ago 2
The United States constitution was created by our forefathers to put into motion the democratic system of electing officials to power,the 'EU commission' is an appointed body,not elected by the European public.
Also,the US constitution was written and followed by many referendums to include the rest of our states,what are you talking about?
75starsuck 2 years ago
What is the difference between European political elites and the American forefathers? When has there been a referendum about your Constitution?
Politoblog 2 years ago 2
One big difference is that these elite's in the EU are planning on casting away individual nationalities and restoring all identities to be same. You would no longer be 'German' or 'British' ,you will be 'European".having to be accountable to the Parliament in Brussels,and not in your former country. I have a feeling that most people will be against this,thats why the signers of the Lisbon treaty want to rush this through before people realize what they've done.
75starsuck 2 years ago
The EU is not restoring any common nationality. It is a different concept of multiple identities. You can be German AND European at the same time. Nobody who is trying to construct the common European identity is actually trying to destruct the smaller ones. Nobody from the EU is trying to get rid of the national parliaments. They are trying to make them cooperate. With all my respect, I really think that some people out of Europe have a very exaggerated view of what the EU actually is.
Politoblog 2 years ago 5
a funny thing is that the world (in a manner of speaking) always refers to Europe as a country and after a lot of decades, we are gaining some capabilities to act as such, without leting go(as many try to acuse) our own nationality. thats very nice and I am curious to see how things will progress.
jh5kl 2 years ago 3
"Iam sorry sir C is the wrong answer, the correct answer is A, sady Politoblog took the joy away from me to explain it in a funny manner. but yeah just read Politoblog's answer."
SpisadKoTunga 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
right on the spot
jh5kl 2 years ago
As a rational thinker for me to take this new world order blabber seriously I need answers to the following questions:
1. What evidence (and evidence today is widely misunderstood) is there for a new world order. Evidence by the way doesn't just constitute a motive.
2. What is the problem with a united Earth? People have stained the image of humanity being united as being bad. A while ago, especially in the midst of war a united world would be seen as a miracle and now people fear it, why?
Guarding 2 years ago 3
well put.
sadly though,studies have shown that manking needed a few borders in order to evolve...
that's against common sense according to me but it seems to be so...
jetaddicted 2 years ago
agree
Alex20123112 2 years ago
What about the Parliament? The EU administration is no more unelected than any countries. Yes, they have a large civil service, but they also have an elected parliament. And I wasn't suggesting that Italy and Europe are or will be united in the same way, I was merely pointing out that the EU isn't annexing anything. It is uniting us. And isn't it better than Italy, if we are able to unite without bloodshed?
M8o3i 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Churchils statement in the end is great, - if there is justice!
- that's the problem, New World Order is the plan, -
and there will be no such thing as free speach or opinion, - but chipping of people and One World Government control .
THAT is the sick game of the Big Kids that leads this game because they are criminals with fortunes.
No justice, no freedom, no fairnes in this game at all,
- NO TRUTH!!!
ishmahin 2 years ago
Yes but Italy not looking to annex other nations, like its doing EU and not looking to be a superpower independent from NATO.
For Serbia i dont wanna discuss. Its useless. If you want to sincere yourself, internet its full of news of that time. USA refuses multiple time to bombard Serbia. We ask them more and more time and finally said yes. USA had no one interest in Serbia. UE had it in making also his first conquer in Kosovo.
LightsEShadows 2 years ago
Untrue. We prayed more and more times USA to bombig Serbia as NATO...... They didnt wanted to do it, but did it at the end. USA always supported us, not same from us and this is also ungrateful..
EU lisbon Treaty its for the costitution of EUROCOP and European Army, read it.
LightsEShadows 2 years ago
EU Indepedent Army will be a treat to world peace and not only in my opinion.
Ah regarding environments and poorest country, we EU put all toxic and radioactive waste in Somalia and Africa and now into Black Sea too. Maybe you need to see better something. And this is the reason why we lost in Somalia.....
Best one as evironemental politic are France and UK too, but problem like Somalia stil remain.
LightsEShadows 2 years ago
We dont need Eu for that. We already did such things as NATO and by European nations agreements. We already united as NATO.
Honestly only things that came from EU are fines, bribes and threats of massive fines and so on.
Europe was build from European Independent Nations, not from European Union... EU need Lisbon Treaty, but its not Europe, its just an over national entity ( hope you understand ).
LightsEShadows 2 years ago
and will cost more and more with more tax raising and money going away from our country.
Marxist Eu policy with production quotes already desroyed our agricolure and so yours by forcing you to import stranger fishers and fish :)
The only way to came out of Economical crysis its Protectionism a moderate one, not total, but we MUST do a balance trade policy. Otherwise we ony getting worse and worse unitl war or Arabic, Russia and chinese colonization maybe..
LightsEShadows 2 years ago
wait, ireland was joined mainly to ECC not EU...... Europe Economic Cooperation its one thing. European Union its another. Ireland was in last decade the most tech industrial Eu nation with same strong fish industry. Eu opens to China markets progressively reduce that and strangers that fish in Ireland seas thats to Eu quotes and Eu guidelines, reduced Ireland Economy. Thats the fact. Algeria, Tunisia and Lybia growth about 7% last year, and that why are independent from WTO and EU.
LightsEShadows 2 years ago
from centuryes all nation always look at trade balance, and thats why we are different. Whis kind of World comunist WTO mixed up corporativism its a moster that is destroying us.
We are not like USA, we are much different, we need more time to became a federal state and anyway Lisbon Treaty will not do that, but do a Socialist Centralized Superstate and goodbye to your democratic costitution.
LightsEShadows 2 years ago
i hope that right wing will change EU, but same Hans Pottering became to blame Capitalism to embrace Socialism, without considering all liberal capitalist voted for them..... What do you need more ?? Beleve me i should want to makemistake, but i dont think so.
At the end Europe must import most of energy resources, no way. We can trade them today as NATO and with USA mediation. As superpower EU we will need Energy independence and this will trigger War.
LightsEShadows 2 years ago
i repeat how can you wonder to mix up our italian low wages with much more powerful UK industry and economy ??? Its a mess and its obvious the someone will pay, your workers, like already happen recently or our industry and unemployed people.
LightsEShadows 2 years ago
we already work togheter but not for everything. Something do togheter, others not. We are already allied and friendly nation. We are already have strong military defense system and strong cooperation in the NATO and we should reinforce NATO. Eu independece will only trigger WW3 like already happened.
2 world war happened 'cause was raising an European Superstate. Eu its already decresing Nato cooperation like recently Eu commission in Georgia.
LightsEShadows 2 years ago