Can the E.U. be reformed or should it disappear?

Post Reply New Topic

I can spend years describing everything that is wrong with it (and this is also true for the "elites" in charge of the U.S. regardless of what political party they belong to), yet no one has this kind of time. I do not see anything wrong with diverting money and resources to "unhealthy economies", yet the E.U., at least in its current form, has created more misery than positive results because the people leading it have no interest in improving life for any of its citizens. The worst leaders we have had more often than not support the agenda of this project. Here are just a few reasons why we should not trust it.

1. The contemporary economic policies of the E.U. combine the worst elements of "capitalism" with the worst elements of "socialism". The effects of this have been especially devastating in former communist countries and Mediterranean countries. The E.U. wants to create a massive corporate state at the expense of regional economies and laws enforced by individual countries. The anonymous people running it acheive this by pretending that they can always be trusted to promote social justice. In practice, however, they, like the largest corporations, are not accountable to anyone. It's true economic agenda, which is becoming increasingly clear, is the ideology of neoliberalism. Before the "crisis", which was most likely intentionally manufactured, many citizens of the E.U. trusted it. Once it was perceived as having a more important role than more accountable arrangements, it suddenly withdrew all support, adopting the neoliberal model without even a transition, leaving many people with nothing. Once the leaders of the "European" Union have consolidated control of everything, they will quickly deregulate everything and everything which once belonged either to individual countries or to individual people will be sold to foreign countries and corporations. Also, the recent "free trade" agreement between the E.U. and the U.S., which is the center of most of the largest corporations, is only going to further weaken European industries.

2. It is increasingly promoting "austerity" while spending millions of Euros on "building democracy", even when such policies only obliterate human rights and security. It pretends to be against American foreign policies, yet this supposed "disagreement" between America and the E.U. is fictional and both entities are controlled by the same "leaders". This is why both entities blindly support the Syrian "rebels". This decision has nothing to do with ideals which we cherish and will have catastrophic consequences. It is an indirect way for the west to commit the same crimes against Syria as it did against Iraq. The west also intentionally destabilized southeastern Europe during the 1990's and the E.U. still supports the despicable agendas of western "elites" in this region which persist to this day. Even though the E.U. is not as effective as the U.S. at foreign interventions, it supports or condones the same agendas most of the time and only rarely opposes them for reasons which are mercenary rather than altruistic.

Many policies in Europe concerning foreign relations, economics, and other matters are decided by the "European" Union, whose leader was selected by the Bilderberg Group, an entity composed of political and corporate leaders from America and western Europe. In practice, almost everything the Bilderberg Group decides on is enforced.

3. We should make it a priority to strengthen our regional industries and re-industrialize instead of supporting unlimited immigration. The social polices of the E.U. also seem to favor the communitarian model instead of the assimilationist model. Individual countries are not even given options concerning these topics. Some aspects of pluralism are desirable, yet everyone needs to intrinsically understand certain rules. The policies of the 1960's, during which immigration was accepted in moderation, were more sensible. The most conspicuous result of mass immigration and communitarianism has been the growth of islamic fundamentalism, yet islam is not the only concern. If people in a society cannot relate to each other and do not meaningfully understand every subtle detail of the values and ideals espoused by "the other", they cannot enact common ideals of justice. This will create a subtle yet indescribable kind of misery, even though religion, ethnicity, and identity are not the only determining factors of compatibility and there are always individual exceptions. Also, the communitarian model is a force of segregation.

The same is true for the attempt to create a "United States of Europe" as well as the attempt to merge European and American policies and ideas. The attempt to unify so many countries who, at times, cannot agree on anything meaningful is partially responsible for the fact that the anonymous people who run the E.U. make decisions without consulting anyone. I am not sure if these anonymous people have very kind intentions.

Conclusion - In practice, most policies of the current “European” Union, among other western entities, have dreadful consequences both for its citizens and for others. I do not have the slightest idea how the E.U. could either be reformed or phased out since I have never formally studied politics. The only ones who could find solutions are unwilling to, which is why these situations are so worrysome and depressing. There is also the chance that even if the E.U. is phased out, many European countries may still only be nominally free from globalization.

Last edited by petitesouris on 19 Jul 2013, 10:23 pm, edited 68 times in total.

What mass immigration? Becoming a EU citizen is one of the hardest things in the world.

The problem I see is countries used their money to support things, which ruined the money, so they had an election, printed new money and started over.

Now they have Euros and Bond Debt, and it will not just go away.

Selling out the next generation worked, when they could renounce you, and start over. Now they have the debt, and will for generations.

They gave up a lot of rights to join the EU, but were left to tax themselves, and issued debt.

A common currency calls for a single tax collector. As the debt reflects everyones money, a single bond issuer.

Everyone running for office will buy votes and pay for it with growing debt. They also all run on lower taxes.

Now it comes out of the standard of living, and future employment. There are young people in Greece and Spain that will never have a job.

America did the same, over spending a trillion a year, and putting our best students in life long debt, now with no jobs to make the payments, which means no credit to buy a car, house, or start a business. All of that future was spent on Iraq. and more, which we still owe.

Maybe the super rich did it, maybe the super dumb, for now there is nothing left to tax, but their assets. Poor people do have the vote, and if not split left and right, just government and anti government, government loses. Replacing the government is easy, so they used the Poison Pill defense, you also get their debt.

Europe and America are supporting an Islamic Holy War in Syria. They are equal partners in driving back the tribes of Afganistan who were going to overrun the whole world.

The truth is a declining economy has left only the war machine to produce jobs and profits. Without war our economy would crumble.

On the local level it is jails and police. Both reduce unemployment, and the need for real employment.

Europe is split between countries who want to write off their debt, tied to countries using the same money as their assets.

After the writedown of Greek Bonds, better to get something than nothing, the issue is, your debt is backed by either taxes, or your national assets.

If southern and eastern states go bankrupt, it will take down the banks, and the solvent states. There are not enough Euros to pay this off. The southern states do not have enough income to pay their debts, and their economies are sinking.

Cut them loose, most of the wealth of Europe vanishes.

It is not that they do not have wealth, they just rather pay bribes than taxes, and their system is based on friends, family, religion, and bribes.

It is going to take a Provisional Government, and tax collectors than follow through. Occupy and extract, for as long as it takes.

As the ideas was to keep states from fighting, why have they been left with armies, navies, air forces? To fight off the Afgani Tribes? Those expenses can be cut, and there is enough force in NATO to keep back the Afganis, at least till the debts are paid.

Reality is a harsh mistress.

I think he's on about inter-EU immigration.

Basically, for me:

The UK should leave the EU and EEA and regain its independence
Then it should set up a free trade agreement with either the EU or with successor countries
Should develop links with other countries wanting to leave the EU
Form some kind of consultative body for dealing with the various issues between European countries
Those countries remaining in the EU can be left to sort out their own future - some countries may want to enter a tighter regional bloc or they may not, but it won't be our business

All states should disappear.

I think the EU failed from its inception. They rushed to sign up too many countries with weak economies and expected the big countries to hoist them up and create a utopian trade area.

The weak economy countries are what dragged the EU into the mess it is in...and adding to the trouble was the lack of a solid, proven economical structure (EU wise) that was not in place.

IF the EU had started in baby steps by starting off with a 'Core EU' union... Germany, France, UK .. and united their economies and currencies... ran it for 10 years until it was running smoothly...

and THEN started to add one country or two per decade repeating the integration process...

the 'full' EU would've been a reality in about 60 years time.

any arrangement which is reliant on an inherently flawed and unsustainable economic system is doomed to failure in the end.

But the UK has never been as enthusiastic about EEC/EC/EU membership in the same way that Belgium, the Netherlands (up until about 10 years ago), Luxembourg or Germany have. The UK has been more sceptical and more like Denmark in their attitude towards the EU. British anti-EU feeling has solidified from the 1990s on.

Really, the UK should never have joined. Nothing to stop Benelux and (West) Germany arranging something though.



Glad you agree that the EU is doomed. I think it's going to take a long time for it to die, but hopefully die it will.

Now in 2013, what is the point of the EU? Is it to build a common market? Reduce internal friction? Carve out a foreign policy?

It's now really just about political control and the creation of a federalsuperstate. The wishes of the public don't really come into it.

Independence and co-operation with our neighbours is what we need, not a grotesque EU structure.

I hope that the anti-EU parties in Europe - like the left-wing Finns Party, the PVV and UKIP - continue to make headway.

The EU is too inflexible and too bureaucratic. In itself it´s not such a bad idea to have a common law for all member states, but the fact that no exceptions can be made will eventually harm the economy rather than strengthen it.

A case in point that is going on at the moment is the price of natural gas which is 4 times higher than in the USA. The Netherlands has sufficient natural gas resources, but because of the anti-discrimination laws, the government is not allowed to offer this natural gas at a reduced price to Dutch-British companies such as Tata Steel. It must offer it at European prices. In the light of the current eurocrisis, this is more than moronic. If we are to get out of the crisis, it´s important to make it attractive for large companies that need natural gas for their production process to invest in one or more of the EU member states. The very real danger now is that they´ll move to the USA. I can´t say I blame them.

It is doomed inevitably, but it doesn't mean that I agree with you on the solution. I'm not even opposed to a Europe in union, just the economic model.

My fear is if you abolish the EU what do you replace it with in the short term? The European nations have been at each others throats since time immemorial and the commonality of purpose given to us by the EU has perhaps been the only thing preventing another major war.

What do the euro-sceptics say to that?

Is Switzerland threatening war on Liechtenstein because it isn't in the EU? Is Norway threatening Iceland?

What we need to replace the EU is democracy. Healthy, free democracies don't go to war with each other. It just doesn't happen. Do you think that the UK is going to close the Channel Tunnel permanently if we leave? Or that, if the Republic of Ireland stays in the EU, that we'll put up a massive wall from Warrenpoint (what a dump; Newcastle is nice though) to just past Culmore?

Or if Germany decides enough is enough, that they'll invade Poland again?

After 1945, there was no prospect of there being another war in Europe. In fact, I can't imagine there possibly being another war in Europe. The EEC/EU is a 1950s concept based on the fear of another war... which is not going to come. We're so well integrated with Europe that the very idea of there being another European war is not even worth discussing considering how ludicrous it is.

If anything, the EU is causing problems now that simply wouldn't exist if it weren't for the eurozone - look at the enmity between Germany and places like Greece and Portugal, with the Mediterranean countries seen as workshy freeloaders and the Germans being seen as Nazis. Again, this is to do with Germany not keeping to itself and minding its own business, by getting involved in the economies in other countries.

Basically, I want to see European countries co-operate freely on all the matters of concern to them - I want them to talk just as much if not more than now - but I want them to be real countries, with their peoples having the final say in how their countries are run. If a population is stable, healthy, not threatened and is not suffering major problems, it has no reason to go to extremes. They tend to sway either slightly to the left or slightly to the right and vote for classical liberal, conservative or genuinely social democratic or socialist parties, but they don't go fascist, Nazi or Communist unless people are on the breadline.

P.S. - I'm not a "eurosceptic". I'm viscerally anti-EU. I want the whole thing consigned to the dustbin, but I love Europe to bits. I think it's a wonderfully diverse set of differing national cultures, ways of life and different peoples. I want Finland to be run by the Finnish people, Poland to be run by Poles, France to be run by the French, but in consultation with each other on important issues that affect them. Internal issues in general shouldn't be the concern of other countries. Lithuanian ministers have no business deciding on Irish farming, for instance. Nor should British mandarins be interfering in, say, Bulgaria's issues.

The reason why the EU isn't working is all down to a lack of democracy, an anti-democratic feature built into the system.

Trust the people, and things will begin to right themselves in the end. Give people the right to decide their own destiny and self-determination. When you rob people of this right, you simply sow anger, discontent, poverty and eventually fascist nationalism and violence.

TL;DR - The countries of Europe can interact with each other on their own. We don't need to be shackled to an EU corpse when there are global opportunities for Britain, Ireland and Norway.

I would personally be not be bothered if we were relegated to the status of a country like Switzerland. There are worse fates.

Last edited by Tequila on 19 Jul 2013, 3:09 am, edited 3 times in total.

NATO and the threat of Soviet annihilation is what has kept Europe peaceful these last 70 years. Do you honestly believe that the EU is what is preventing war in Europe? If anything, it is the primary source of destabilization and tension amongst European countries. Would Greece be electing Nazis if not for the terms put on it by other countries? You can't rob people of their democracy and self determination, it can only lead to violence. Anybody that knows history knows that the sickness of Naziism in Germany did not happen simply because the German people are evil.

Actually I do not mind the people who come from other E.U. countries because they tend to bring valuable skills (we have a shortage of people in the medical field and also in certain technical fields) and it is easier to find common ground with them. Neither do I have anything against people coming from nonwestern countries which are E.U. members. Anyways, I think this question should be decided by individual countries rather than the E.U.

However, I could never say with a straight face that I support unlimited and unconditional immigration from islamic populations, even though I do realize that not all muslims are hostile to our people and ideals (and some non muslim people and entities are) and that they are not identical to each other (their relation to their new country sometimes varies according to which place they come from and other factors).

The E.U. should either become more cautious about which individuals enter it, live there, become citizens, or engage in commerce with its citizens, or should cease telling its member states how to handle this. Also, anything that could affect our countries having to do with islamism (and multiple forms of organized crime as well, including that committed by corporations) could also affect countries which are adjacent to us or relatively close to us. Many countries face similar problems and the failure of the E.U. to end all this in its own territory will make it worse for these countries as well. The idea of abolishing all borders, in practice, will only facilitate these criminal activities, and maybe the leaders of the west profit from this.

Also, I am a she not a he.

Last edited by petitesouris on 20 Jul 2013, 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

^ I also think this is the only sound solution. Yet, I also agree with thomas81, since I do not see why one must be against cooperation between our countries (as long as any integration is democratically supported otherwise it cannot function without intrinsic support), especially considering that it is more desirable to trade and cooperate with relative allies than with entities that are either against us or merely self serving. However, I do agree with Tequila that preserving the integrity of nations and regions is far better than the current system, since the option to leave alliances should always exist. It is natural to form alliances which are supposed to reflect common ideals, yet the current system is unaccountable and places little or no intrinsic value on freedom. This unaccountable entity has tried to replace semi self sufficient nations and regions (and often such agendas are exploitative in nature).

Perhaps an alternative European Union or any other alliance or cooperation would be a shield against military and corporate globalization and any aggressive foreign entities (including radical islam). The current situation is the opposite. I am also somewhat disappointed with eurosceptics. I often wonder how many eurosceptics actually wish for freedom from these forces instead of an order in which almost everything is subordinated to “identities”, intentionally rendering useless all authentic resistance to these forces and creating a false illusion of self determination. Ideally, nations should exist in the context of ethics rather than the military-industrial complex and other undesirable influences.

Last edited by petitesouris on 21 Jul 2013, 3:07 pm, edited 5 times in total.