The future of the European Union

The Economist: The future of the European Union

Excerpt:

A good idea, separating the wheat from the chaff ... ?

 

The gig is almost up on the left's one world government ultimate power attempt..

 

The EU should be a union of sovereign NATIONAL states. French living in France, Germans living in Germany, English living in England, etc. And no Muslims, needless to say.
Enough with this migration and greed. Yes, you could hire a non-European to work for half the salary but in the long run, this cheepness will come very, very pricy - socially, demographicaly, culturaly. Not to mention the possibility of all this accumulated wealth to go down in the flames of a big religious war.
As the English like to say - "I'm not so wealthy to buy cheap".

 

As I see it the rise of ultra-nationalism in Europe is due to the younger generation not knowing the horrors of war. The core of the EU was formed because those nations had suffered thru 2 devastating world wars and felt they would not survive a third.
The nationality you are is an accident of your birth.
Next to religion, the stupidest thing to die for.
I believe the British will learn the folly of leaving the EU.

 

The wars GAVE them their nationalism..
The renewed nationalism is coming from the suicidal destruction of their culture..

 

Well we do know the demography of the British vote. First, it was not a British vote or not British Nationalism it was English (and maybe Wales) Nationalism. This can be seen in the two articles I will leave. Secondly it was not the young. The group that most strongly wants to leave the EU is the English over 65's - the under 35's being those who most strongly wanted to remain.

In England it was also those with less educational qualifications and a poorer standard of living. However this was not recreated in Scotland.

For instance England

but

https://www.theguardian.com/news/da...nd-demographics-where-the-brexit-vote-was-won

and

Brexit is an old people’s home … And it’s English, not British.


So basically it is an English Nationalist decision, mainly by the old - a Nationalism which most likely will result in the break up of the UK as well as England and Wales moving away from the EU - check out the second half of the second link. That link also speaks about the democratic deficit of Westminster and May's ideals.
https://diem25.org/brexit-is-an-old-peoples-home/

 

So, should we all speak one language and interbreed into one mediocre (brownish) human race?

The problems with European wars was that somebody was always trying to steal the neigbour's stuff. People just forgot the 10-th commandment - you shall not covet. Or were sticking their nose in somebody elses religious buisiness. All and all, because people didn't clearly know their boundaries.
Make yourself an experiment - remove the fence between you and your neighbours and see what happens.

 

For the winners, war emphasises their nationalism. Demonstrates the success of it.
For the losers it crushes it.

They must seek a new nationalism. A greater one.
And they have. The EU.
No German can be a proud German nationalist, but every German can be proud of the EU.


With regards to the OP, yes the EU wold work much better as a liberal institution. The problem is, socialists exist and Europe is the place they live. It won't happen. Time and time again they have chosen war over it.

 

You hope.

You live in a cave somewhere in the wilds of Montana ... ?

 

I see no problem with any German being a proud nationalist..

EU is not nationalist, it is submitting your nation to control of a greater central bank and leftist globalist motives..
Not nationalist at all..

 

Nope...

The leftists have completely lost the USA not, the people are now wise to their ways, not fooling anyone anymore..

Also the EU is in **** shape, they are losing europe to sovereign nationalism too..
It's a beautiful thing, the left across the world is downtrending fast being replaces by the right..

 

Blah, blah, blah.

Try harder. You're hallucinatory - Trump lost the popular vote by a very large margin of 2%. He should not be PotUS.

But, never mind, the US will have to fix its own internal electoral problems - this is only the second time recently that the winner of the popular vote has lost the election. The last time was Al Gore. (Remember him?)

The US has a great many problem to overcome, foremost of which is far too much money influencing politics. Of course, for a nation that is linked to the BoobTube by means of an umbilical chord the unfortunate consequences are not surprising ...

 

The EU will die, eventually. But the way it dies is important for the future of Europe.

They could try to cling on to the idea of a federal Europe, and treat secessionists poorly, to try to dissuade other member states from leaving. This will lead to further resentment between the different nations in Europe, and maybe fuel future conflicts.

OR, they could let the states who want to, leave, and try to keep up with good relations with them, not block them from different markets, and try their best to cooperate, even though it will not work as a deterrence towards other member states' wishes to leave. This way, the EU could die, slowly, one state at the time, and still keep up the good relations between nations. This is the most sensible way, and the one where noone really loses, other than Brussels.

I don't want to live in a federal state where my vote is watered down among 500 million people, with a huge difference in values and preferences. I prefer living where I do now, with 5 million people, sharing similar values. No state really should be much larger than 20 million anyway, too many people means too many unheard voices.

 

Unless you can justify this comment, it is just idle supposition.

There is no reason whatsoever that a common-market of 731 million consumers should be dissolved when it has brought them all sufficient prosperity ...

The notion of a common-market requires adherence, and not sophistry when the first prevailing economic winds present a difficulty.

Most Europeans are living better off today than they ever have.

Why should they want to change back to a isolated-nation status that brought uneven economic development because national leaders pursued individualistic economic goals, and did so badly.

Nope, the EU is a lot better than what came before. And anyone who thinks otherwise has no sense whatsoever of "what came before". I.e., "history" ...

 

First of all, the EU is much more than "the common market". It's a political system, based on disregarding national differences, values, and cultures.

Also, one does not have to turn full isolationist, just because one is opposed to the EU, or even the common market. The common market itself, while lauded by the anglosphere, has its faults, and is at times devastating to both economy and ecology.

My country is not an EU member, and I hope we never join. (Not very likely either, as 80% of the population here is opposed to joining now). I don't want to be part of the free market, since the parts of Norway not under the EU free market does a lot better outside of it, than the areas under EU legislation.

Most importantly, the EU makes it harder for smaller nations, like mine, to regulate their own issues in a way that works the best for us. I don't want Polish worker rights, British food security, and German civil rights in my country. We're better at managing Norway than larger European nations ever will be, and I don't want to meddle in their countries either.

A good relationship with other European countries? Sure. But I'm about as open to the four freedoms of the EU as the average anglo landowner would be to allemannsretten.

 

And there is no point giving superior wealth as a reason for having it to people who haven't prospered from it.
We don't all trade goods continentally for a living mate. In fact only a very very few of us do. About 5%.

Do I really have to mention Greece, Italy and Spain to you?


So it's nice that you have prospered under the EU, but I haven't. And indeed most people haven't.
Just a few.

And this is the key problem with arguing for the economic benefits of the EU. It isn't a benefit for all of us. There are winners and losers.

There are a gazillion lefty metrics out there to show you that the rich got richer and the poor poorer. That real wages went down. Real prices went up.
The income gap grew and so on.

But who needs statistics.
I know how I used to live and I know how I do now, and I know that the last time I made a profit, we weren't in the EU. It's been a **** 25 years.


My governments debt has increased. The EU's debt has increased.
The masters of economic mismanagement.
The EU can't keep books. The very last people I want having any say over money.

 

But nowadays all nations in the Northern Hemisphere largely agree with each other and are aligned through the same principles and policies. The only ones who do not understand these principles and policies are the Muslims, all of whom believe more or less openly that they are destined and entitled to own the whole world and convert it to THEIR PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES.

Let's be clear. There is no major risk of a war breaking out in Europe (not in the conventional sense). The world's tensions have long shifted from Europe to Asia. If there's going to be a serious war in the next decades, it will be in Asia.

 

Fine, just don't come knocking on the European Parliament's doors in Strasbourg when a Russian boat "accidentally" nukes Norway ...

You've got most of the above slanted, and your insinuation in the last statement is picayune. The division of freedoms in the EU is enough to give direction at a unified level and enough to allow nation-states to adapt to their own particular needs/desires. (There is no real and substantiated conflict as regards the "separation of powers"; and Brexit is an emotional mistake on the part of Brits who were afraid of a flood of immigrants that never even made it through the Channel tunnel.)

And why? Because it seems that Norway likes its "independence"? When the oil runs out, we'll see how much that "independence" suits Norway's economic development.

Enjoy the free-ride on air-polluting oil that Norway sells to the world - cuz it aint gonna last forevah ...

 

Not possible. A Muslim born in Europe has all the rights of any European citizen also born there. A Muslim having been made a citizen of Europe enjoys exactly the same rights.

You've got it all wrong, wrong, wrong.

NB: Your comment reminds me of that guy in the 1920s & 30s ranting about the Jews in Germany. What was his name? Shitler ... ?

 

Sick, sick, sick.

The culture in France is doing just fine, just like anywhere else despite the passing economic problems from which Europe is exiting as economies improve. The Far-Right dolts are trying to hang their hats on the past 8 years of economic recession that has been felt badly throughout a Europe unprepared for it. But it IS coming to an end.

Where in heaven's name do you live?

Kazakhstan ... ?

 

You aren't fooling anyone..

 

You are on a "leftist globalist motives" gig that reminds me of the reverse during the days of the Soviet Union.

At the very least, what Europe has accomplished is two key elements of any Social Democracy - one of which is Free Tertiary Education and the other is Lo-cost National Health Services. If you lived in the US, you'd learn how the lack of the former consigns you to poverty and the other to near certain death in case of a grave illness.

The people of the EU have learned from their mistakes. And a common-market of 731 million people (soon minus the Brits) is the bedrock of any economy as well as economic growth ...

 

I can show you that same picture in a good number of European countries.

And so what?

Do you think it is only the Muslims who are wrecking downtown Paris? Wow! Have you got that wrong! With unemployment at above 10%, it brings out all the White-dregs of society to fight the police. They're young men letting of steam.

Ignorant young men who are angry because they haven't got a job - and damn few are "Muslims" ...

 

Good luck with that..
That seems to turn out so well.. Never ends up with people starving to death or mass genocide..

 

No ****? Doesn't that just back up my statement quite nice like..