Anyone thinks EU is a good thing?

[Poltergeist]

In forums like this one a strong criticism of European Union is very usual, if not prevailing mode of thought. I just wonder, is there anyone here who thinks EU is a great thing and who doesn't agree with its detractors.

I am certainly not one of those (fans of the EU, that is).

[Loki]

It could be a force for good, if run by responsible and preservationist-minded people. But sadly, it's not. The EU is good for one thing though -- preventing destructive nationalistic tendencies, as displayed in NS Germany.

[Nationalitist]

Yes, it's good.

We shouldn't let the Germans start another world war!

[Beorn]

I would be more inclined to accept Britain's place within the EU if firstly the British citizens were given the right to vote upon issues which directly affect them. It seems too many treaties and statutes have been passed through which have crippled once thriving sectors of British industry with no one gaining other than some French farmer or some small and insignificant country in the East. The high population shift over Europe, with more countries receiving higher amounts than others, has done nothing but damage the communities, industry/economy and the nations as a whole.

I would be more inclined to envision a European alliance rather than a union. Unions are the destruction of nations and should be halted and fought against by any correct minded European preservationist.

[Poltergeist]

Yes, it's good.

We shouldn't let the Germans start another world war!

Some say it's - on the contrary - a tool of German doimination in Europe.


It could be a force for good, if run by responsible and preservationist-minded people. But sadly, it's not. The EU is good for one thing though -- preventing destructive nationalistic tendencies, as displayed in NS Germany.

You mean expansionistic, tendencies aimed at the forceful change of borders?

Yeah, in that case only I could agree - to a certain extent - by acknowledging that it is an involunatry good side effect of an otherwise bad organization.

[Nodens]

I'd agree that while the current incarnation of the EU is an almost exclusively negative force, without some strong degree of intra-European cooperation, most European nations are doomed to petty rivalry and global geopolitical irrelevance.

[RoyBatty]

Some say it's - on the contrary - a tool of German doimination in Europe.


It certainly is a German tool for European domination and the Europeans were greedy and stupid enough to take German baksheesh in exchange for surrendering their land.

What's more, a lot of the EU's controls are being wrestled away by highly organised and well-financed special interest groups who, through the EU, have exponential leverage to take control of regions where they before stood little chance to do so.

The Germans have partially shot themselves in the foot imo. They thought they were building themselves another Holy Roman Empire but in actual fact they're only paying for it while the NWO are reaping the rewards.

In case anybody still thought the EU was a good thing.........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1210689/EU-set-guidelines-number-immigrants-European-country-take.html

[007]

I would be more inclined to accept Britain's place within the EU if .

Weak as water. :rolleyes:

[Beorn]

Weak as water. :rolleyes:

What is?

[Tabiti]

Yeah, it was great to travel in Romania only with ID card...And to get scholarship from the Euro funds.
That's what I've seen from EU so far, actually.

[Atlas]

Yeah, it was great to travel in Romania only with ID card...And to get scholarship from the Euro funds.
That's what I've seen from EU so far, actually.

You're one of us since not so long ago, Tabiti, wait for some more years and you'll see the consequences !

[The Lawspeaker]

I think that the idea of European cooperation is essentially good. But- there is the but- what we are seeing now is not cooperation but a slow take-over of all European nations by special interest groups (a lot of them with a liberal character), big banks and investors and airheads in favor of unitarianism, the end of national sovereignty and big government (the political left).

This destroys our nation-states and destroys the very thing that a EU could be good for: protecting our European heritage and serving as a mediator. When it comes to the Euro, I think that the idea in itself isn't so bad, but the effects are. This all leads to one dominant institution. The idea behind abolishing border control was essentially good but it now serves a darker purpose and border control should be restored ASAP.

The solution is a weak EFTA (http://www.efta.int/)-like institution and a return to national sovereignty (including a return to our own currencies and the restoration of border control) but cooperation on those levels where it is needed.

[007]

What is?

Being "inclined to accept Britain's place within the EU " under any circumstances.

[Loki]

It certainly is a German tool for European domination and the Europeans were greedy and stupid enough to take German baksheesh in exchange for surrendering their land.


I don't think this was ever the German intention. The Germans wanted stability in Europe after WW2 ... and they realised that a Europe where France and Germany are united, is a stable and strong Europe. In this scenario, Germans can also be more confident in being themselves (i.e. industrious, productive and forward-looking) without the Germanist baggage that accompanied the Third Reich and previously exclusive German empires, and without the guilt that was forced on it after WW2.

[RoyBatty]

Cooperation and good relations between EU states is a good thing but the EU Superstate is a disaster imo. Within a couple of decades the nation states will be destroyed, the populations replaced and outbred by 3d world immigrants and the land and assets will be in the hands of the NWO.

[Beorn]

Being "inclined to accept Britain's place within the EU " under any circumstances.

I may hate the British government and the Union, and wish everyday for it to end ,but whilst I still have to put up with it I at least expect to have my government governing me and not some greasy politician from another country do so in its stead.

That's the problem with unions. You never have your own governing you. Always foreigners.

[007]

Then perhaps you'd be good enough to refuse to "accept Britain's place in the EU" from now on.

[RoyBatty]

I don't think this was ever the German intention. The Germans wanted stability in Europe after WW2 ... and they realised that a Europe where France and Germany are united, is a stable and strong Europe. In this scenario, Germans can also be more confident in being themselves (i.e. industrious, productive and forward-looking) without the Germanist baggage that accompanied the Third Reich and previously exclusive German empires, and without the guilt that was forced on it after WW2.

Perhaps some elements in Germany genuinely believed this, same as in the other countries who originally participated in the project. However, it stands to reason that this was an opportunity to achieve what Germany failed to achieve through a series of wars, namely, to become the top dog in Mittel-Europa and to then expand eastwards. (Nowhere else to go and that's where the resources are).

Imo (could be wrong of course) the more things change, the more they stay the same. It may be a "new" Europe, a "new" Germany and so on but ultimately the only way for Europe to grow is to expand eastwards, just like the Nazis aimed to do under Plan Ost.

[Beorn]

Then perhaps you'd be good enough to refuse to "accept Britain's place in the EU" from now on.

Why?

[RoyBatty]

I may hate the British government and the Union, and wish everyday for it to end ,but whilst I still have to put up with it I at least expect to have my government governing me and not some greasy politician from another country do so in its stead.

That's the problem with unions. You never have your own governing you. Always foreigners.

Indeed and this country has already been sold out. That one-eyed Scottish buffoon isn't even running it anymore. It's Mandelsson whose in charge now.

[Beorn]

Indeed and this country has already been sold out. That one-eyed Scottish buffoon isn't even running it anymore. It's Mandelsson whose in charge now.

All the more reason to get rid of it all. You can't polish a turd.

[RoyBatty]

All the more reason to get rid of it all. You can't polish a turd.

Indeed but this is the great failure of democracy. The masses are too brainwashed and ignorant to vote for renewal. They'll simply substitute one poison for another.

[007]

Why?

Why not?

[Fortis in Arduis]

All the more reason to get rid of it all. You can't polish a turd.

I disagree.

If the turd has become ossified over thousands of years, it can be polished, carved and even set as an exquisite bejewellment.

[Óttar]

I don't see how the EU is good for German hegemony. One of the linchpins of the EU was to put an end to the Deutsche-Franzoesiche Erbfeindung i.e. L'esprit de ravache between the two nations. France is not going to get steamrolled by Germany any time soon. The Germans have a lot of self-hatred anyhow.

Anyway, I like how I could get British citizenship and then work and live anywhere in Europe. I don't think EU citizens will want to surrender that right.

[RoyBatty]

I don't see how the EU is good for German hegemony. One of the linchpins of the EU was to put an end to the Deutsche-Franzoesiche Erbfeindung i.e. L'esprit de ravache between the two nations. France is not going to get steamrolled by Germany any time soon.

Regarding the EU, Germany and France have a symbiotic relationship. Germany is obviously the EU's economic powerhouse but due to past baggage it lacks in political legitimacy. That's where France comes in.

Therefore the EU is built upon these two pillars. They're mutually dependent.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Lawspeaker
I think that the idea of European cooperation is essentially good. But- there is the but- what we are seeing now is not cooperation but a slow take-over of all European nations by special interest groups (a lot of them with a liberal character), big banks and investors and airheads in favor of unitarianism, the end of national sovereignty and big government (the political left).

This destroys our nation-states and destroys the very thing that a EU could be good for: protecting our European heritage and serving as a mediator. When it comes to the Euro, I think that the idea in itself isn't so bad, but the effects are. This all leads to one dominant institution. The idea behind abolishing border control was essentially good but it now serves a darker purpose and border control should be restored ASAP.

The solution is a weak EFTA-like institution and a return to national sovereignty (including a return to our own currencies and the restoration of border control) but cooperation on those levels where it is needed.

Essentially, I agree.

There is a world of difference between co-operation and subservience, the EU offers us the later, despite what ever motivation (genuine or not) its instigators had.

The bottom line is if an organisation serves to take power away from the people and concentrate it in the hands of a select few (no matter their intent) then it is negative.

Far from bringing peace in Europe, and let’s be honest it was NATO (not the EEC or EU) that has prevented a European conflict or Soviet invasion, it may well lead to another general European conflict as former states try to break away.

[Jäger]

The EU is good for one thing though -- preventing destructive nationalistic tendencies, as displayed in NS Germany.
How exactly is the EU helping in doing so?

[Loki]

How exactly is the EU helping in doing so?

By limiting the possibility of war between major European countries like England, Germany and France. Under the EU, such a thing would be politically impossible.

[Jäger]

By limiting the possibility of war between major European countries like England, Germany and France. Under the EU, such a thing would be politically impossible.
Why that?

[Skandi]

Anyway, I like how I could get British citizenship and then work and live anywhere in Europe. I don't think EU citizens will want to surrender that right.

I know of only one person who has done so from here, most of them turn up here and in France and germany and then claim off of our benefit system. I would quite happily relinquish that "Right" thank you.

[Loki]

Why that?

Simply because one EU country would not be allowed to militarily attack the other. European nations have always attacked each other and warred each other ... before nation-states existed and after. The EU has effectively heralded an end to intra-European border dispute resolution via war. This was very necessary, since intra-European nationalism had been the cause of the only two world wars in history ... both starting in Europe.

[The Lawspeaker]

I know of only one person who has done so from here, most of them turn up here and in France and germany and then claim off of our benefit system. I would quite happily relinquish that "Right" thank you.
I think that that right should only be retained for EU-citizens. But provisions should be made to exclude certain states for the time being (Poland, Bulgaria, the Baltic States, Romania, Slovenia) until they get their own business in order.

If a Dutchman or Dane would want to work in let's say Austria or Finland it really shouldn't be too much of a hassle- that is: if (s)he studies or works and has a private (health) insurance or is covered under his own national insurance. Each country should of course follow their own rules for citizenship and I think that for the Netherlands they should be very, very strict. I actually think that marriage to a native Dutch citizen should not immediately make you a citizen.





Anyway, I like how I could get British citizenship and then work and live anywhere in Europe. I don't think EU citizens will want to surrender that right.
Well. I have no problems with overseas Europeans (like Americans or Australians). I think that they should be able to work and study amongst us if they behave well and fit in. And more importantly are covered under their own national insurance schemes or have a private insurance.

Awarding citizenship however is a different story.
The only exception (in the case of the Netherlands) should be Afrikaners because of their difficult situation.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Loki
Simply because one EU country would not be allowed to militarily attack the other. European nations have always attacked each other and warred each other ... before nation-states existed and after. The EU has effectively heralded an end to intra-European border dispute resolution via war. This was very necessary, since intra-European nationalism had been the cause of the only two world wars in history ... both starting in Europe.

The EU hasn’t prevented war in Europe, NATO (more specifically US military domination has), the EU is militarily impotent and on it’s own could do little militarily to prevent internal strife. Without a substantial American presence on the continent there would have been little to prevent German re-armament whole sale rather than the American controlled re-armament the West Germans went through, without US military force (or more specific her strategic nukes) it would be interesting to speculate whether the USSR would have decided or not to move west, if they had the EU would have been unable to prevent it.

As much as I detest American imperialism it has to be said that it was Washington’s intention to fight WW3 to the last European that prevented intra-European conflict.

[RoyBatty]

How exactly is the EU helping in doing so?

The system is essentially this:

Countries absorbed into the EU follow EU diktats and the elected officials / politicians of those countries are effectively paid off and bought to implement EU policies. In other words, there is now little "independence" or "improvisation" taking place in local politics (which would generally include the implementation of unpredictable and risky policies towards neighbouring states) since everybody are essentially following the same liberal-marxist script. The minute there are signs that somebody is about to deviate they are quickly brought into line again by EU controllers.

Sure there are supposedly different parties with supposedly different policies but it's essentially a Punch-and-Judy show. It's hocus pocus. They're play acting, some pretend to be "rightwing" while others pretend to be "leftwing". The ignorant public endorses this fraud by participating in elections and by usually voting for parties and politicians who are already on the NWO payroll.

In a nutshell, previously independent and largely self-sufficient countries are made economically and militarily dependent through globalisation and integration into the EU block. This dependence weakens their ability to act independently and hence it's highly unlikely that a country will embark on adventures which don't carry the EU's seal of approval.

[Jäger]

Simply because one EU country would not be allowed to militarily attack the other.
So civil war is not possible, because ... :confused:
If Germany would decide to secede from the EU, and start attacking Poland, then the whole of Europe would be against Germany? How is this different from before the EU?
And how would this actually prevent a full scale war, it rather makes it automatically so.

I understand that a strong military alliance might scare off potential rascals, however, there are always ways to succeed :)

[Loki]

So civil war is not possible, because ... :confused:
If Germany would decide to secede from the EU, and start attacking Poland, then the whole of Europe would be against Germany? How is this different from before the EU?
And how would this actually prevent a full scale war, it rather makes it automatically so.

I understand that a strong military alliance might scare off potential rascals, however, there are always ways to succeed :)

Well of course, where there is a will, there is a way. The point is that it would be more difficult under an overseeing EU for such a thing to happen. Much more difficult. As for Germany seceding from the EU, that is quite unthinkable at this stage. European integration is marching on, and borders between countries like Germany, France, Austria etc are becoming a lot more blurred. Especially when considering that languages and cultures do not follow the current national borders.

[Jäger]

As for Germany seceding from the EU, that is quite unthinkable at this stage.
Indeed, I was referring to a NS Germany of course.

[Amapola]

EU-->puke

[Humanophage]

It would have been a good thing if it disowned multiculturalism and anti-ethno-nationalism as a guiding principle. Some protectionist economic policies appear inefficient as well. However, I approve of economic free zones, freedom of movement, and education programmes. I also think that investing in Eastern Europe is a sound policy.

While this country is not an EU member and is unlikely to become one, I am quite glad that it receives a formidable amount of white immigrants. I find it peculiar that people should complain about European migration from the less developed states. It is, of course, still less desirable than the substitution of human labour with superior technology, but I see no disadvantage from the social point of view.

[Poltergeist]

It is not a good thing.

[Fred]

Yes, it's good.

We shouldn't let the Germans start another world war!
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=141488&postcount=163

Hold it now...there are some here who blame America for Germany's problems, rather than the Soviets, or even the Anglo-French entente.

The EU ought to be great, not simply good. It should be grouped on a regional basis and these regions (not the English style, but the supernational bloc sort) should be respected considerations for overall policies.:)

[francescovalentino]

Any man or woman who thinks the EU is a good thing in its current demarcation needs to reassess the situation. At the moment, the EU consists of borderline-Communist, far-left, remote, aging and shameless technocrats.
In no way do I consider them European. This would suggest they had some form of allegiance to Europe, rather than to this federalist, world-government experiment.
The shame for me is that the EU has a lot of potential as a tool for highlighting the individuality of each European state, but also ensuring that we work for a common cause. However, I believe that it should act principally as an economic and occasional military alliance, rather than the politico-socio-legal regime that it now enforces.

[Anthropos]

I don't think this was ever the German intention. The Germans wanted stability in Europe after WW2 ... and they realised that a Europe where France and Germany are united, is a stable and strong Europe. In this scenario, Germans can also be more confident in being themselves (i.e. industrious, productive and forward-looking) without the Germanist baggage that accompanied the Third Reich and previously exclusive German empires, and without the guilt that was forced on it after WW2.

The origins of the EU always strike me as partially hidden in darkness, and I am reminded about this everytime I get into the debate. What is beyond doubt is that the EU itself certainly does not want to tell us much about the origins, and the fact is that I have never found satisfactory information about it despite having been preoccupied with the question from time to time since 1994.

However, as things appear to me, I am inclined to say that the EU is in some way an Allies project, and certainly I would say that it's more of that than a German project, in the origins of the whole thing. I would guess, actually, that Germany has really been beaten into submission, and that's why it appears nowadays as if Germany is driving the project. Does it sound a bit cooky? I don't deny that they are to a great extent driving the project, and I am often annoyed by the fact that Germany uses the EU to bully other European nations, Sweden included, but the question that interests me right now is the origins of it.

As for what is more or less common knowledge, there was in Charles de Gaulle's France a key figure in Alexandre Kojève. I first read about this in a book by Svante Nordin, where it says (and I am translating this for your convenience):

"Politically, Alexandre Kojève was a Marxist and a Stalinist. That, however, did not prevent him from also admiring de Gaulle, and to pursue a career in the last decades of his life that would lead him to key positions in the administration of postwar France, and to the role as one of the architects of the European Union." (Det pessimistiska förnuftet, 1996, page 139.)

And from wikipedia (and I am quoting a longer passage, because it is fairly interesting):

"Kojève was born in Russia to a wealthy and influential family. He was educated in Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany. He completed his Ph.D., on the Russian religious philosopher Vladimir Soloviev's views on the union of God and man in Christ, under the direction of Karl Jaspers. Early influences included the philosopher Martin Heidegger and the historian of science Alexandre Koyré. Kojève spent most of his life in France, and in 1933-1939 he delivered in Paris a series of lectures on Hegel's work Phenomenology of Spirit. After World War II, Kojève worked in the French Ministry of Economic Affairs as one of the chief planners of the European Common Market.

Kojève was an extraordinarily learned man. It is said that he was fluent in Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan dialects as well as in French, German, Russian, English, Hebrew, Latin and classical Greek. He was interested in art, and corresponded with his uncle, the abstract artist Wassily Kandinsky, about whose work he wrote an influential essay in 1936.

Kojève died in Brussels in 1968, shortly after giving a talk at the European Economic Community (now European Union) on behalf of the French government. In his later years he had repeatedly expressed the position that what had, in Marx's time and afterward, been known as a European proletariat, no longer existed, and the wealthy West sorely needed to help developing countries to overcome widespread poverty through large monetary gifts (in the mold of the Marshall Plan)."

Alexandre Kojève on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Koj%C3%A8ve)

[Anthropos]

I found some more:

"In 1940, Kojeve was drafted into the French army but did not see any combat; and being unable to leave France the following year, he spent the course of the war in Marseille, during which time he wrote and worked for the Resistance in various capacities. After the war, Kojeve's lectures were collected, edited, and published by Raymond Queneau; and this, coupled with the publication of Jean Hyppolite's translation of the Phenomenology of Spirit from 1939 to 1941, helped to set the stage for the introduction and subsequent sovereign reign of Hegel and Hegelianism in post-war France.

Kojeve, however, did not return to academia. With the help of former student Robert Marjolin, Kojeve instead secured a job in the Direction des relations economiques exterieures, and for the next twenty years, he was according to everyone who worked with him the eminence grise of French economic policy. He was involved in diplomatic events and treaties whose significance continues to define our century. After helping to implement the Marshall Plan, he was involved in promoting the European Economic Community (now the European Union); he was a central participant in the negotiations leading to the establishment of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now the World Trade Organization); and he took a keen interest in encouraging Third World development (what is now routinely referred to as the North-South split). And he admitted in a 1968 interview that he truly 'adored this work. For the intellectual, success takes the place of accomplishment. You write a book, it is a bestseller, that's all. Here it is different. There are accomplishments. I have told you the pleasure that I experienced when my tariff system was adopted. This is a superior kind of game.' Nonetheless, it is not as if Kojeve abandoned philosophy altogether: as his multi-volume and mostly posthumously published corpus reveals, he was active in the evenings and on the weekends composing his 'update' of the Hegelian system of science. He died in 1968 while giving a speech in Brussels before a meeting of the Common Market."

About Alexandre Kojève (http://www.isfp.co.uk/russian_thinkers/alexandre_kojeve.html)

[Liffrea]

Power has become more centralised, more remote, less dependent on sustaining a favourable impression…….for the people who don’t matter (people like me) the EU is bad news, heavy taxation without even the fiction of representation, probable state abuse of “dissenters” is on the cards and a political/business elite (they’re the ones that matter) prepared to sell out and destroy anything that stands in the way.

At least under Westminster we were being arseholed and treated like mugs by our own politicians, now we have French, Germans, Belgians, Swedes etc lining up for the pleasure.

The bright side is the EU is such a ridiculously fragile house of cards the whole lot will probably crash down in less than ten years.

Then again we get what we deserve we have all, me included, sat on our arses scratching our nuts whilst this nightmare has taken shape……perhaps a time with a chain around our neck and a real insight into how far the “great and the good” will go to stay the “great and the good” may make us understand that there is more important things in life than X factor and Mc Donald’s.

Perhaps the EU is just the sort of pain this country needs....

[Anthropos]

The bright side is the EU is such a ridiculously fragile house of cards the whole lot will probably crash down in less than ten years.

Of course, I wouldn't know what the future has in store, but I think this is wishful thinking. It will take vigilant resistance to do something about the EU, and it takes vigilant resistance to the governments and systems in the respective countries as well. The latter is the primary concern, even. For as long as people are only whining about the EU without going further, the EU can just go ahead as usual.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
Of course, I wouldn't know what the future has in store, but I think this is wishful thinking. It will take vigilant resistance to do something about the EU, and it takes vigilant resistance to the governments and systems in the respective countries as well. The latter is the primary concern, even. For as long as people are only whining about the EU without going further, the EU can just go ahead as usual.

Personally I think resistance is wishful thinking, the political elite have had little to lose, so far, from the EU project, obviously, otherwise it wouldn’t be at the stage it is now.

There is no counterforce of any significance to derail the EU. You want change then you can’t rely on marginal parties (BNP/UKIP) sniping at the edges, the Tories could have resisted the EU they have abdicated that responsibility and there is no other real political force left in the UK. With them go the last big hitters and the money men who could have stopped the EU project dead in it's tracks.

As for popular resistance…….I don’t even factor that at all. Popular resistance is a fiction, it’s one that dies quickly and usually bloodily unless there are men of substance behind it.

The EU may implode because of the level of mistrust within the chattering classes, it will never be a nation, it will certainly never be a democracy of any popular representative type (it would die quick if it were), it will always be a rag bag of nations with varying degrees of hostility held together by covert force and subterfuge. So far the political elites in the states that matter i.e. France, Germany, the UK in the last twenty years, have had a common goal, the EU super state, now we get to see who runs it, who follows whose lead and who dances to whose tune……

[Wolffield]

I thought EU was a good thing, untill I read many articles why it's not so good and I saw this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3wOGcU

[Fred]

I thought EU was a good thing, untill I read many articles why it's not so good and I saw this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3wOGcUI agree that the EU would be the Western, Southern and Northern equivalent of Eastern Europe, Russia in particular...but it does not have to hold the same ideology as the Soviets.:(

[Anthropos]

Personally I think resistance is wishful thinking, the political elite have had little to lose, so far, from the EU project, obviously, otherwise it wouldn’t be at the stage it is now.

There is no counterforce of any significance to derail the EU.

That's right: There isn't, and I don't see it coming. The theoretical distance for a country like Sweden to get out of the EU is small and there is a rather strong anti-EU sentiment, but people just won't act on it.

[Liffrea]

I realised a while back that the best a man can ask from government is that they take your money (not to much) and they bugger off and leave you in peace. The British political elite were usually ok with that, whether they waste my hard earned cash in a fancy 19th century poor piece of Gothic architecture or in the back of a Safeway’s wagon I really don’t give a damn, as long as they stay away from me.

The EU want more, much more.

I have nothing to gain by supporting Westminster, but I probably have a lot to lose with Brussels.

[esaima]

From an East-Euros point of view a good thing.
Estonian doctors can go to Finland and non-doctors can go to elsewhere.

[Monolith]

I am extremely hostile to it. As I see it, a member nation is like an old, tired patient who is aware of his inevitable demise, but is constantly being given more and more sedatives so that he can't do anything about it. The patient dies peacefully in the end, his wealth is seized by others and his name forgotten. At least in this nightmare. I hope it crashes and burns.

[Poltergeist]

From an East-Euros point of view a good thin.
Estonian doctors can go to Finland and non-doctors can go to elsewhere.

Not a very dignified attitude, I would say.

Especially when put in such crude fashion.

[Svipdag]

The unity of the EU has never been put to the test. As long as it isn't severely stressed, the ancient animosities which smoulder beneath the sruface will not emerge. I venture to predict, however, if any divisive situation arises, the EU will disintegrate.

The states united by treaty in the EU have too little in common. They differ in language, customs, religion, history, and culture. Many of them have often been at war with each other. A treaty is not a strong instrument for the abolition of old resentments and hatreds.

The nations of the EU have surrendered their sovereignty to the Brussells bureaucracy. How long will it be before they regret this ?

[Sol Invictus]

I venture to predict, however, if any divisive situation arises, the EU will disintegrate.

There already is division, and any and all divisive situations have been put down as 'innapropriate, xenophobic, isolationist, and racist'.



The nations of the EU have surrendered their sovereignty to the [Bilderberg Group]. How long will it be before they regret this ?

Fixed.

[esaima]

Not a very dignified attitude, I would say.


Well, there was some irony, self-irony and pragmatism in it.;)

[safinator]

If it was runed from different people it could have been a good thing for Europeans.

[Flintlocke]

EUSSR

[Sturmmann Batbaianov]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yc-Lk62n49w/TOzRT41LRMI/AAAAAAAAFgs/5V1RojFxp1o/s1600/EUSSR+Flag.jpg

If the good powers won WW2 the EU concept invented by the germans would've been a lot different and new united Europe would've been the greatest power world ever saw.