European Parliamentary Elections results, major concern?

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

True they aren't drawn to best a specific person but rather to keep the the district under specific party control. Draw your district to be firmly conservative then as soon as you make marginal moves to the left on a few issues and you get defeated by someone even further on the right. Possibly applicable in this case because his district was redrawn a few years ago to make it more conservative

 

I have been researching this issue, it seems that David Brat ran his campaign primarily on an anti-immigration perspective?

 

With the changing demographics in the USA and the increasing numbers of Latino voters I find this type of strategy anachronistic, surely this can't be a sustainable policy for Republicans going forward or am I missing something?

 

It drives me up the wall when people say that. It's not "anti-immigration", it's "anti illegal immigration", big difference. And no, you're not missing anything, America is doomed, Democrats finally succeeded in replacing the voters with the ones they prefer.

[213374U]

• Euro is not EU's currency, although original idea of Euro was that it would become such, but currently it hasn't and it more like Independent monetary union, with close tides with EU. Even though all EU's member states are members of EMU, only those countries that have been participated in European Exchange Rate Mechanism II, which is voluntary, for at least two years can adopt Euro as their currency. States outside of EU also can adopt Euro as their currency if they fulfill certain criteria. Currently there are several countries and territories outside EU that use Euro as their currency.

 

That's why I said "once switching to the Euro". You can argue that Euro is not the currency of the EU until you are blue in the face, but the reality is it's the currency of the majority of its members and EU members (except Denmark and the UK) are obligated to make the change once they meet the requisites. Facts such as participation through EERMII and "countries" such as Andorra and San Marino having the Euro as their currency sure are interesting, but irrelevant in the context of what I said, to wit, that monetary policy instruments are taken from EU member countries and transferred to the ECB once they adopt the Euro.

 

 

 

• ECHR is Council of Europe's court that is institute that is independent from EU and nearly all European countries are it's members. Decisions of national courts can't be appealed to ECJ. ECJ works as institute that determines how EU law should be interpret, but final decision is on national courts. ECJ also works as arbiter between EU's institutions.

 

My bad. I should have worded that better. ECHR is indeed not a de jure organ of the EU—it's instead part of the even more (!) undemocratic Council of Europe. Regardless, membership in the EU de facto requires ratification of the ECHR (in the opinion of the ECJ, the ECHR is of "special importance") and this often means that domestic courts are overruled. The ECJ does in fact have the last word on EU law interpretation and application and, as per art. 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, a domestic court *must* both ask for and comply with a preliminary ruling (if it's a last instance court), which also sets precedent on the particular point of contention.

 

 

 

• European Commission don't have power to issue regulations or directives, it only has power to make proposals for legislation, that Council of the European Union and European Parliament has to accept, if proposal is accepted it is Commission job to see that all member states obey it.

 

Nepenthe already addressed this, so I'm just going to say that EC does have the power to issue regulations, by exercising delegated legislative power. It is also the sole actor with legislative initiative.

 

 

 

• EU is first and foremost trade union, so it should not come as surprise to any country that joins it that there is trade agreements that they have to obey if they want to be part of the union.

 

"Agreement" implies something participants agree to. But countries don't get to agree or disagree on EU trading policy because nobody asks—it's dictated by the EU. Don't like it? GTFO. EU trading policy doesn't work like "regular" international agreements.

 

Thanks for the objections, btw. Forced me to freshen up on EU stuff that I studied some time ago and didn't remember so well...

[Elerond]

 

• EU is first and foremost trade union, so it should not come as surprise to any country that joins it that there is trade agreements that they have to obey if they want to be part of the union.

 

"Agreement" implies something participants agree to. But countries don't get to agree or disagree on EU trading policy because nobody asks—it's dictated by the EU. Don't like it? GTFO. EU trading policy doesn't work like "regular" international agreements.

 

Thanks for the objections, btw. Forced me to freshen up on EU stuff that I studied some time ago and didn't remember so well...

 

 

Nobody forces any country to join EU, countries that join know what they agree when they join as those trading policies are major part why countries want to join at first place, so complaining about them seems to me bit odd, especially when only democratic countries are allowed to join and that countries can op-out from union if they want.  

 

And EU's trading policies are actually more democratic than your regular international agreements that aren't bilateral, as in your regular agreements are more often than not dictated by our super powers and other countries need to ratify them or usually suffer heavy sanctions, where with EU joining EU is voluntary thing to do.

 

European Commission don't have legal right to issue regulations, if EP and CoEU don't let it do so , which means that if people's democratic representatives let them exercising delegated legislative power, withing limits. Of course there could be corruption, but that is true for every governmental system. 

 

Membership of EC is one of those things that you say "regular" international agreements as being member of it was something that country needed to do even before EU if they really wanted to have good relationships with western European nations, but it don't make it part of EU, as it is all European organization, including those also those European countries that will probably never join in EU. So trying to put ECHR something that countries have to submit because of EU is just wrong and misleading. ECJ don't have power to over rule national courts it can only decide how EU's laws should be interpret, of course as EU law are binding towards member countries it decision also bind member countries, but that don't give it power to overrule any decision made by courts of member states.

 

European Exchange Rate Mechanism II is voluntary system, but being it for two years is requirement to joining Euro, which is for example why Sweden uses still their own currency instead of Euro, even though it more than fulfill every other requirement  It is bureaucratic system that was put on place to make it possible to join in EU without joining Euro, even though that in Maastricht Treaty it was agreed that Euro will be official currency of EU, but as always such agreement didn't fit for all, which is why UK and Denmark got their exception rule in as they were members before Maastricht Treaty, but when Sweden couple years later did want join only EU, but not Euro, this bureaucratic hole was made and with it Euro's state as EU official currency was effectively removed. 

[Mor]

On a tangibly related topic to the EU, recent report by Freedom House, shows that Eastern Europe has suffered a sharp democratic decline in the last year. The report cover topic like the Civil Society, Corruption, Electoral Process, Judicial Framework etc

[213374U]

European Commission don't have legal right to issue regulations, if EP and CoEU don't let it do so , which means that if people's democratic representatives let them exercising delegated legislative power, withing limits. Of course there could be corruption, but that is true for every governmental system.

You are splitting hairs here. They have the power to issue regulations and directives if the EP and Council delegate on them, which they often do. So they do in fact issue regulations and directives, which member countries must adhere to. This is in addition to what Nep explained, which you hand-wave simply as "any government system is corrupt to some degree". Well, duh. Regardless, the problem remains. Again, precisely how are you disagreeing with what I said? Seems to me that you are trying really hard to correct me on technicalities to suggest that what I'm saying is not true. I appreciate the corrections, but what exactly are you getting at?

 

 

 

Membership of EC is one of those things that you say "regular" international agreements as being member of it was something that country needed to do even before EU if they really wanted to have good relationships with western European nations, but it don't make it part of EU, as it is all European organization, including those also those European countries that will probably never join in EU. So trying to put ECHR something that countries have to submit because of EU is just wrong and misleading. ECJ don't have power to over rule national courts it can only decide how EU's laws should be interpret, of course as EU law are binding towards member countries it decision also bind member countries, but that don't give it power to overrule any decision made by courts of member states.

Dude, no. Ratification of the ECHR is essentially a standard that countries have to meet in order to qualify for accession. This isn't my opinion. It's the opinion of the European Commission. No, it's not part of the letter of the law, if that's what you are saying, but that's grasping at straws, because it's viewed by legal experts as an informal requirement.

 

The ECJ doesn't directly overrule domestic courts, but that's not what I said, so I guess I agree. However, read the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. Last instance courts involved in cases dealing with EU law where a point of contention is raised where no precedent exists (precedent set by the ECJ, btw) must halt proceedings and wait for a preliminary ruling which then they must apply. No, the ECJ doesn't overrule domestic courts, it simply tells them how to do their job with regards to EU law which, by the way, supersedes domestic law.

 

 

 

European Exchange Rate Mechanism II is voluntary system, but being it for two years is requirement to joining Euro, which is for example why Sweden uses still their own currency instead of Euro, even though it more than fulfill every other requirement  It is bureaucratic system that was put on place to make it possible to join in EU without joining Euro, even though that in Maastricht Treaty it was agreed that Euro will be official currency of EU, but as always such agreement didn't fit for all, which is why UK and Denmark got their exception rule in as they were members before Maastricht Treaty, but when Sweden couple years later did want join only EU, but not Euro, this bureaucratic hole was made and with it Euro's state as EU official currency was effectively removed.

From the EC link I pasted before: "All Member States of the European Union, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area."

 

The loophole used by Sweden to avoid adopting the Euro (bravo) worked for Sweden, but it's doubtful it will be allowed for new members. There's also the possibility that the requirement is waived or "applied retroactively", but it remains to be seen what the EU can do to enforce the legal imperative mandating adoption of the Euro with regards to Sweden. At any rate, changing the subject and pointing out irrelevant trivia doesn't change the bottom line that, as I said, is that the majority of EU members are also members of the Eurozone, and it just so happens that monetary policy for Eurozone members is governed from the ECB.

 

On the subject of trading policies, the problem is that at some point the policy can benefit a certain country, but further down the road the policy may change. Fall in line or face stiff penalties. Yes, one can always GTFO. Are you suggesting that anyone concerned about the lack of transparency and democratic deficits in the EU should just GTFO? Further, read the context in which this was first raised, that is Tagaziel's rather ironic mischaracterization of anyone disagreeing with his views on the EU as "morons", supported by a vague one-liner on "what the EU does". In my reply, I posted some of the things the EU actually does. Other than technicalities, nitpicking, and perhaps unclear wording on my part, I have yet to see you seriously disagree with the substance of any of the things I said originally.

Edited June 17, 2014 by 213374U

[Nepenthe]

 

 

 

• EU is first and foremost trade union, so it should not come as surprise to any country that joins it that there is trade agreements that they have to obey if they want to be part of the union.

 

 

"Agreement" implies something participants agree to. But countries don't get to agree or disagree on EU trading policy because nobody asks—it's dictated by the EU. Don't like it? GTFO. EU trading policy doesn't work like "regular" international agreements.

 

Thanks for the objections, btw. Forced me to freshen up on EU stuff that I studied some time ago and didn't remember so well...

 

Nobody forces any country to join EU, countries that join know what they agree when they join as those trading policies are major part why countries want to join at first place, so complaining about them seems to me bit odd, especially when only democratic countries are allowed to join and that countries can op-out from union if they want.  

BS, the present EU is very far from the EU 12 or 15 a lot of the net payers joined. Not sure things would've gone the same way, had EU25 and the Euro been known at the time.

[Rostere]

 

L

Ugh. There it is again, the stupid myth that the UK is "unfairly" treated by the EU. One needs only to look here and here to get a quick reality check. GOOD MORNING BRITAIN, ****ING ITALY PAYS MORE PER CAPITA TO THE EU THAN YOU DO. YOU SHOULD BE LYING UNDER THE BED, CRYING IN SHAME (on a side note I have no idea why Sweden pays so indefensibly little).

The only way the UKIP will be able to do anything about the EU at all without joining Le Pen is if Farage will be in government after the next set of UK national elections. What are the odds for a UKIP + Tory government? If people think that is impossible, they better get used to the idea of Farage as Prime Minister, since that is what you will need to achieve if you want out of the EU.

 

Well, that certainly told me

 

Your 'new' pitch seems to be that we have to work together to tackle Putin and organised crime, and we have to give budget control to Brussels to deliver the Euro. How is that a sales pitch?

 

I don't see any ecvidence that Brussels or the Euro-elite have the faintest interest in foreign policy or corruption or drugs or people trafficking. There's no coherence, and no sense of urgency in Euro-level action on any of those issues.

 

The Euro project is about one thing only: and that's a pan European superstate. Based on principles of big government, taxes, and regulation.

 

Well, the part about organized crime is really only a small asterisk (in the real meaning of the word). I consider the Euro an inevitability, we would have to give budget control to Brussels to realize it, but that does not mean I want to do that now, since that is not what the people who joined the Euro were sold. At the moment, I would not want my country to join the Euro.

 

If I would have designed the system myself, I would have constructed at least two Eurozones, or at least zones of a common currency. We could have for example a "northern zone" with Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the Baltic nations, a "core" zone with France, Benelux, Austria and Germany, a Mediterranean zone with Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece (and perhaps Croatia now) et.c, all with committees with the power to reject an unbalanced budget or enforce austerity. That way you would put more similar countries together and make the process less of a shock. Then eventually you would merge these zones, when they were internally stable.

 

I would say there is a very high level of urgency on foreign policy matters on EU-level. Here's what the Liberal EU party group leader had to say on foreign politics during the short time he was allocated to speak about it on a televised debate. I might have mentioned trafficking because I've seen candidates whose sole (okay, almost) area of interest in the EP is human trafficking. Furthermore, on Christmas (or New Year's day, I don't remember) the Swedish Prime Minister held a yearly speech which was televised, which was dedicated entirely to the subject of human trafficking and what Sweden and especially the EU can do about it (imagine an American President dedicating his State of the Union speech to something similar...).

 

During the build-up to the EP elections my town was plastered with a gazillion political posters where for example one party dedicated virtually all their posters to messages about "United we stand, divided we fall" (not literal translation) and "Yes to nuclear power, no to Russian gas" (literal translation). That kind of stuff, plus the issue of immigration, took up virtually the whole time on the TV debates I saw.

 

When at an arbitrary central place in London, looking around, how many political posters do you see and what is their content? My bet is that you're seeing very different things from the ones I see. I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the political climate and tone of debate in Europe because of the EU debate that exists in Britain, where - a bit of a guess - the "pro-EU" parties try to pretend it's "just" an economic union and the EU-sceptics can promise and say everything beneath the sun because they know they won't have any say in the EP anyway - with zero power comes zero responsibility. You believe there is nobody pushing a constructive united foreign policy agenda in Brussels simply because you don't see any of these people where you live. And even if there are such people, they would only get asked EU-sceptic questions in interviews because that's where the current discussion is.

 

YES, the EU project is about a pan-European superstate! But why would you ever believe it is necessarily about "principles of big government, taxes, and regulation" when YOU get to vote for the people who sit in there? This is purely and simply an instance of two things - one, a knee-jerk reflex towards a "scaaary" word; two, another instance of the EU giant taking a stride with one leg, but failing to move the other (having both the EP and full-fledged national parliaments seems like "big government"). You instinctively believe a "pan-European superstate" is bad because of associations with the word. But remember that the UK is a "pan-British superstate", incorporating areas such as Cornwall (a "pan-Cornish superstate" which has ceded virtually all sovereignty to legislation at national level). Why do you think that we do not perceive these political entities as nebulous and malevolent? Why is it that we would regard an "Party For An Independent Camborne And Redruth" as not having all the Indians in their canoe, but not the UKIP? (for those who would say this is self-evident dumb****ery, the UK Parliament constituency of Camborne and Redruth is about double the size of Monaco, which economically speaking is far more successful than most European states). What the UKIP is to the EU, the SNP is to Britain (and just like dismal failures like Tony Blair are the best recruiters for SNP, the Euro (and locally, immigration) is what is keeping UKIP afloat). It is simply the age-old struggle between the primal instinct to isolate yourself, go hide under a rock or retract into your shell when reality is not what you want it to be, versus the future of a united humanity.

 

Over the course of our history, we have grown from organizing in extended families and tribes in prehistoric times, to cities 6000 years ago, to federations of cities, to nations united through might and oppression, to nations united by nationalism, to nations united by democratic principles, to federations of nations united by democratic principles (...united by democratic principles) - that is, the EU. A long, long, time ago, some of our ancestors banded together to form permanent tribes consisting of several families who could hunt cooperatively. Those who didn't you can still see today (although they might be critically endangered), living by picking fruits off trees in Africa. They didn't  - and will most likely never - walk the Moon, build a fusion reactor, harvest the resources of an extraterrestrial body or find out about the beginning - and the end - of the Universe we know. Back then, the choice must have seemed much harder - why tolerate living with all these other guys when there's enough fruit for everybody? Fast forward thousands of years, and the UK stands before the same decision today. Yes, there are the negative details: we know that the Euro is **** (with current legislation). We know that the CAP is ****. But from a grand perspective, it is impossible to deny that uniting Europe the same way that Britain was once united is not the future.

 

I would return to your (Rostere's) point about economics. I would remind the forum that arguing in favour of economic benefits isn't an argument in favour of the EU. It's the argument which was given for the EC. Can we go back to just a free trade area? Of course we bloody can. It's what we were.

 

I listen to this pan-Euro political message and I go all Guard Dog. I get the urge to ask awkward bloody questions.

 

I'm going to put a pointy set of questions to you, Rosti. It concerns the three fundamental security issues facing all European nations, and I want to know what the EU has actually done about any of them. 

 

1) Energy security

2) Political instability in the near East, from Moscow to Marrakech

3) Economic reform within the EU, where many nations are currently husbanding grotesque inefficiencies [you can't have security without a healthy economy]

 

~~

 

EDIT: I'm asking because I expect you do have some sort of answer. Don't disappoint me.

 

Walsingham: The EU is the EC. Much of the EU legislation is made so that the international agreements can be kept in place. The nations who want to be in these agreements have got to have common policies. It's just like with the Euro: it works if you can enforce balanced budgets centrally. For a free trade agreement to work smoothly, there has got to be common agreements on subsidies, intellectual property, consumer rights, production, et.c. The countries who want to join the common market but not the EU get the offer to agree with EU regulations which they have no say in themselves. Obey with no say. The day after the UK quits the EU and wants to join the EU free trade zone, Farage will be sent a contract to sign which obliges the UK to follow all the EU regulations on the relevant areas. The same with other types of agreements.

 

So what about those security issues?

1. Watch this. This area of EU legislation is rather new. This was a widely known EU project that I bet people today would have wanted the EU to push more for back in 2012. Eventually this here will end up in a coordinated plan to ensure EU energy security. If we did not already have the EU institution to create strategies for the whole continent before a looming energy crisis, we would end up with trying to create that platform during which the countries which make up the EU countries would fall into instability like dominoes. There was already an EU-wide strategy for handling energy shortages (since 2009 I think), but not one dealing with diversifying away from Russia. It is brutally clear that this issue can not be handled on a basis of "everyone for themselves".
2. Start off by reading this and this (and you might watch some videos from this YouTube channel) - there is a lot of exciting stuff going on in this area. The EU anti-piracy mission outside Somalia has completely mauled piracy, reducing yearly occurrences of piracy by about 90%. I can only wonder if this EU project to train North African coast guard can deal the same blow to illegal immigration, two years on from now. This is another smash hit which gets about zero attention (compare the state of order in Gaza and the PA-controlled West Bank). Yeah, I could write an entire book about this subject. EU military and police training and other missions is changing reality for the better right now as we speak.

    

   It should be self-evident why a combined force of EU armies will give more clout than a divided potpourri, and why common military research projects will be more efficient than everyone paying for their own. The advances made on a EU military will serve as an impenetrable shield and deterrent against outward aggression towards EU member states. From an economic perspective, a united EU capable of enforcing economic sanctions together or initializing aid projects together will have the ear of every near East ruler lined with red carpet.

3. This is in my opinion the most interesting point. But as you well know, the EU currently does not have the power to directly enforce anything at all about economic reform. See here and here - the most that has happened is an "agreement on a commitment" based on consent, and even that has been criticized as "undemocratic" by the Farage crowd. You can't blame the coach for not scoring any goals when he's not allowed to kick the ball.

[Meshugger]

^That didn't really answer my questions.

 

Look, i agree on a base level that we are all one human species and it is our goal to explore the stars. But you cannot deny human nature the same time and ignore history.

[213374U]

To be honest, the idea of a unified "EU army" scares the living **** out of me.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Look, i agree on a base level that we are all one human species and it is our goal to explore the stars. But you cannot deny human nature the same time and ignore history.

 

Dude, that's stoner logic...what are you saying and how is that relevant to the EU 

[Meshugger]

 

 

Dude, that's stoner logic...what are you saying and how is that relevant to the EU  

 

Non-statist thinking is always stoner-thinking for a statist. Pity.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Meshugger

[Rostere]

^That didn't really answer my questions.

 

Look, i agree on a base level that we are all one human species and it is our goal to explore the stars. But you cannot deny human nature the same time and ignore history.

 

You got it wrong, it is not me but you who is denying human nature and ignoring history.

 

Throughout the history of humanity, it is not the people who strived towards seclusion and anarchy who has shaped their own fate, it is the societies which have organized themselves who have made the great historical achievements. If we look at what has happened since 10000 years ago, the answer is crystal clear: humanity is becoming ever more interconnected through cooperation in various forms. 4000 years ago, two small villages somewhere in Europe might have been at war with each other thinking it impossible that one day they would both belong to the same unified nation, let alone the same small insignificant county. "How could that ever happen, since it would be against our human nature to make common cause with each other?", "How do we preserve our self-determination when we are controlled by a super-state?". Today, we would laugh at these objections. The inhabitants of Schweifeld and the inhabitants of Vierwinden don't think* it's against their human nature to coexist without declaring independence or civil war when they get sour. They don't think it infringes on their self-determination to share the same government and foreign policy. Yet today's "huge" nations would seem like a crackpot fantasy for people living in 5000 B.C.. Things have changed, just as they are changing right now.

 

It is no wonder then that when the EU is the next step of this evolution of organizational structures, we are put in an exactly analoguous situation to the one between rival tribes/villages in 2000 B.C.. Suddenly it is as if we could not see what history consistently has told us through thousands of years. We (you, that is) think of our current organizational structure level of countries as self-evident and "natural", a perfect expression of human nature, and forget that they are the product of thousands of years of societal evolution, which has favoured those who banded together and eradicated those who thought to tackle the world's problems alone. It lies in human nature to cooperate. It is not me who ignores history, it is you. It is you who believes that humanity has through thousands of years built more strengthened and interconnected societal structures only to suddenly stop now - and why? - because it's somehow magically self-evident that our current nations perfectly reflect the natural maximum organizational capability of the human race? Smells like it's good old intellectual inertia at work here.

 

The Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires are completely and entirely different beasts from the EU. These were not supra-national entities kept together by mutual, democratic consent of member countries, they were kept together by force - by violent oppression of those who would be independent. In the EU, the parliament is democratically elected, countries choose to enter the EU by democratic referendum, countries can secede from the EU without facing threat of war, and so on. So in other words, the mechanisms through which the different entities were created, how they work, and how they can fall apart have nothing in common. The only thing they have in common is that they are "superstates". Thus, an argument equivalent to yours would be "Look how things went for the Republic of Cospaia, Dahomey and Tanganyika... I think Iceland is going down. Similarly to the aforementioned, it is also a country, you see."

 

*Based on conjecture but you get the point

[Meshugger]

That's quite the assumption you have there about what i said about human nature. Human nature is that we are social animals that band together into groups, not for a inherent desire for a greater organizational structure, but due to competition, ruled by pure will alone. It's start from the simple desire to get a mate to control territories. As soon as there is no external strife to fight against, societies collapse or more often absolve into smaller territories. Look at Europe at the moment, former Yugoslavia is desintegrating more and more, Czechoslovakia is no more, Scotland is ready for a national referendum of independence, same with Catalonia. Belgium is breaking into two, and so on. Unless Russia invades the whole eastern europe or a new horde of ottoman warriors are crossing the Bosphorus, there is little to no interest in banding together for any other reason than economical co-dependency, which is the best way (IMO) to curb the more destructive parts of our nature: namely free trade.

 

The same aspect is also manifested in this desire for competition, picking teams, preferably the winning team. Currently, and more previously after the fall of the Soviet Union, EU was a collective of states that where rich, and law and order and great way of life. Now, if the other team is Neo-Russia, the decision was not that hard at all. For some reason, this has been interpreted by the intelligentia that nations wish to give up their self-determination to someone else completely without any reason at all. And the reaction to that was reflected in the current election. 

 

That's why i said that i agree on a base level, as in we should see ourselves as one and explore the stars. But it is our nature to join into different groups for many different reasons to that hinder it. So unless we evolve beyond that, i do not see any scenario that you describe without any external force or threat, real or imaginary. 

 

So again, please answer questions a page or two back. How is your scenario possible without turning into despotic measures?

[Valsuelm]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/25/european-parliament-election-euroskeptics_n_5390012.html

 

So there have been some concerning results, IMO, with the rise of euroskeptics and far right political parties in various countries in the EU.

 

Overall we should still see 2/3 majority for support of the EU and the future of the EU but the fact that political parties that are basically opposed to the EU are doing so well in the local vote in the various EU countries worries me. Especially for the longevity of the EU. You can see how well the UKIP did in the UK, Nigel Farage is ecstatic

 

So what do think is the cause of all this anti-EU sentiment and should we be worried. The worst end result would be an eventual dissolution of the EU and the various European countries return to independent rule which I think would be an egregious mistake?

 

Ah yes, independent rule would be horrible. Are you evil?

 

The worst end result, and the most probable unless the EU is largely voluntarily dismantled by members via them leaving it is this: The EU continues as it is, becoming an ever increasing fascist socialist state run by a parasitic ruling elite that leeches the lifeblood from the various economies in Europe and enslaves the populace in debt, and then once the tyranny reaches heretofore unseen yet inevitable levels, collapses in revolution and war. Not everyone is severely brainwashed into thinking the EU is a good thing, that nationalism is a bad thing, that people who oppose the former but support the latter are racist, or certainly that the independent self governing by any group of people is a bad thing. Check your reality sensors, as usual, they're a bit off Bruce, but actually implying that independent rule would be 'an egregious mistake' is a new low for you (or high for you on the evil meter).

Edited June 21, 2014 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/25/european-parliament-election-euroskeptics_n_5390012.html

 

So there have been some concerning results, IMO, with the rise of euroskeptics and far right political parties in various countries in the EU.

 

Overall we should still see 2/3 majority for support of the EU and the future of the EU but the fact that political parties that are basically opposed to the EU are doing so well in the local vote in the various EU countries worries me. Especially for the longevity of the EU. You can see how well the UKIP did in the UK, Nigel Farage is ecstatic

 

So what do think is the cause of all this anti-EU sentiment and should we be worried. The worst end result would be an eventual dissolution of the EU and the various European countries return to independent rule which I think would be an egregious mistake?

 

Ah yes, independent rule would be horrible. Are you evil?

 

The worst end result, and the most probable unless the EU is largely voluntarily dismantled by members via them leaving it is this: The EU continues as it is, becoming an ever increasing fascist socialist state run . Check your reality sensors, as usual, they're a bit off Bruce, but actually implying that independent rule would be 'an egregious mistake' is a new low for you (or high for you on the evil meter).

 

 

 

Hi Vals

 

Where have you been? I have missed your rhetoric.  I really thought you had been arrested by the FBI for some iniquitous and treasonous plot against the government. Good to have you posting again

[Wrath of Dagon]

Hmm, almost forgot, I was saving this for a suitable thread : http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/07/when-governments-elect-another-people.html